Eva Martha Rosales De Vega; Conrrado Vega Perez 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVA MARTHA ROSALES DE VEGA;
CONRRADO VEGA PEREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71838
Agency Nos. A095-571-326
A095-270-280
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eva Martha Rosales De Vega and Conrrado Vega Perez, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71838 2
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s October 1, 2004,
order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners
failed to demonstrate that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable
tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a
petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as
the petitioner acts with due diligence”); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090,
1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --