Maria Balicat Oliveros v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA BALICAT OLIVEROS; et al., No. 09-71512 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A047-872-565 A047-872-566 v. A047-872-567 A047-872-568 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, A047-872-569 A047-872-570 Respondent. MEMORANDUM * On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2011 ** Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. Maria Balicat Oliveros and her five daughters, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ September 30, 2008, motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (generally, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and petitioners did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). In light of this disposition, petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-71512