LORENZO FLORES-CERVANTES and LAURA MIRANDA-ADAME 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LORENZO FLORES-CERVANTES and
LAURA MIRANDA-ADAME,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72989
Agency Nos. A075-526-665
A075-526-666
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Flores-Cervantes and Laura Miranda-Adame, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motion to
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72989 2
reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion
to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion
to reopen as time- and number-barred, see 8 U.S.C § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (c)(7)(A),
where petitioners failed to explain before the agency how they were prevented
from raising their ineffective assistance claims in their first motion to reopen, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits is
recognized “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud,
or error”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --