Jose Luis Arreola-Alvarado; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
SS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS ARREOLA-ALVARADO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74644
Agency Nos. A097-356-903
A097-356-904
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Arreola-Alvarado and Virginia Nieto-Flores, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SS/Research 07-74644 2
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004),
and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ second motion
to reopen as time- and number-barred because it was filed approximately one year
and six months after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C)(i). Petitioners did not show they were entitled to
equitable tolling because they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 598-99.
Petitioners’ motion for a stay of their voluntary departure period is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --