Jose Alfredo Cruz Hernandez; Irma Celina Mata Iniguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ALFREDO CRUZ HERNANDEZ;
IRMA CELINA MATA INIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72635
Agency Nos. A079-289-999
A079-609-510
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alfredo Cruz Hernandez and Irma Celina Mata Iniguez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72635 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, 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 the successive motion to reopen was filed nearly three years after
the BIA’s May 26, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final
administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --