Antonio Valenzuela Cruz; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTONIO VALENZUELA CRUZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73985
Agency Nos. A079-540-031
A079-540-032
A079-540-033
A079-540-034
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Valenzuela Cruz, Maria Guadalupe Teran Ramirez, and two of their
children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73985 2
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because petitioners filed the motion more than three years after
the BIA’s February 24, 2004, removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(2), and
petitioners failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to
a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and
exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); cf. Ghahremani v.
Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --