Leonardo Galarza Escobar, Diana Lorena Galarza Escobar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LEONARDO GALARZA ESCOBAR,
DIANA LORENA GALARZA
ESCOBAR
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-74877
07-74879
Agency Nos. A075-688-491
A075-688-617
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Leonardo Galarza Escobar and Diana Lorena
Galarza Escobar, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74877 2
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for
abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny
the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to
reopen because both motions were filed more than three years after the BIA’s
February 26, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, and failed to qualify for
an exception to the 90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); see
also Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (motion to
reopen based on pending I-130 visa petition may be granted if, inter alia, the
motion is timely filed); Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam) (pending petition for review does not toll the time limit for filing
motion to reopen with the BIA).
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 208 F.3d 838
(9th Cir. 2000), does not change the result in this case.
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --