FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENITO PEREZ LOPEZ; MARIA No. 10-71170
REMEDIOS RODRIGUEZ,
Agency Nos. A079-535-327
Petitioners, A079-535-673
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Benito Perez Lopez and Maria Remedios Rodriguez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se 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, and review de novo claims of due process violations.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.