Gilberto Velasco Sanchez; Bertha Arreguin Contreras 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).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO VELASCO SANCHEZ;
BERTHA ARREGUIN CONTRERAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70193
Agency Nos. A079-572-703
A079-572-704
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.
Gilberto Velasco Sanchez and Bertha Arreguin Contreras, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 07-70193 2
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th
Cir. 2007), 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 21 months after the
BIA’s December 2, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final
administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable
tolling. Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
Petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --