Fanny Ruth Arteaga; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FANNY RUTH ARTEAGA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75235
Agency Nos. A075-667-561
A075-664-178
A075-667-562
A075-667-563
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.
Fanny Ruth Arteaga and family, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for
FILED
OCT 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75235 2
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 more than five years
after the BIA’s March 11, 2003, 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”).
Respondent’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --