Pedro Antonio Perez - Velasquez; Ana Bertha Perez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PEDRO ANTONIO PEREZ -
VELASQUEZ; ANA BERTHA PEREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74495
Agency Nos. A076-366-359
A076-366-360
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Antonio Perez-Velasquez and Ana Bertha Perez, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74495 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than three
years after the final administrative order was entered in their case, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897
(9th Cir. 2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely request
to withdraw from their grant of voluntary departure. See Dada v. Mukasey, 128
S.Ct. 2307, 2319 (2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --