FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA TERESA ROMERO; No. 07-73152
SERVANDO ROMERO,
Agency Nos. A079-520-825
Petitioners, A079-520-826
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Maria Teresa Romero and Servando Romero, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We
*
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).
KS/Research
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo questions of law, including claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and
remand for further proceedings.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely as it pertains to their former counsel, because the motion was
filed more than five years after the March 6, 2002, in absentia order, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (a motion seeking to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal
order based on exceptional circumstances must be filed within 180 days), and
petitioners failed to establish they acted with due diligence in bringing their
ineffective assistance claim against their former counsel, see Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is
prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence
in discovering such circumstances).
The BIA abused its discretion in finding that petitioners’ motion fails to state
specific complaints of fraud or hardship as a result of their immigration
consultant’s conduct. In their motion to reopen, petitioners contended that they
were prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal and that their consultant filed
KS/Research 2 07-73152
numerous frivolous motions, thereby depriving them the opportunity to have their
in absentia order rescinded and their proceedings reopened. We therefore remand
for the BIA to reconsider petitioners’ claim against their immigration consultant in
light of this discrepancy.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
KS/Research 3 07-73152