Benito Perez Lopez; Maria Remedios Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BENITO PEREZ LOPEZ; MARIA
REMEDIOS RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71170
Agency Nos. A079-535-327
A079-535-673
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Benito Perez Lopez and Maria Remedios Rodriguez, 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.
FILED
APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations.
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’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --