Gaby Rubi Moguel-Manzanilla; Jose Dolores Hernandez- Cauich 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABY RUBI MOGUEL-MANZANILLA;
JOSE DOLORES HERNANDEZ-
CAUICH,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72799
Agency Nos. A079-587-513
A079-587-514
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gaby Rubi Moguel-Manzanilla and Jose Dolores Hernandez-Cauich, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72799 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s June 16,
2004, order dismissing their underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
they failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at
897-98. Moreover, petitioners failed to establish prejudice from any alleged
attorney error or deception. Id. at 902.
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s June 16, 2004, order, we lack
jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --