Jose Humberto Jauregui Gutierrez; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 HUMBERTO JAUREGUI
GUTIERREZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-72641
07-74329
Agency Nos. A075-523-976
A076-715-435
A076-715-436
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated cases, Jose Humberto Jauregui Gutierrez and his
family, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motion to reopen based upon
ineffective assistance of counsel and denying their motion to reconsider. We have
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72641 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denials
of motions to reopen and motions to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s
December 5, 2002, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to
demonstrate that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling,
see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (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”); see also Singh v.
Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s June 1, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,
272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA failed to adequately address their
arguments and applied an incorrect legal standard are unsupported by the record.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --