Guillermo Siordia Juarez; Maria Barron 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GUILLERMO SIORDIA JUAREZ;
MARIA BARRON,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71694
Agency Nos. A095-105-419
A075-762-161
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Siordia Juarez and Maria Barron, 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
FILED
JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71694 2
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen. 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 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 that they filed their motion within 90 days of discovering the alleged
ineffective assistance, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897-99 (limitation period may
be equitably tolled until petitioner meets with attorney to discuss case and learns of
previous ineffective assistance of counsel); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176,
1196 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (90-day limitation period begins to run from the day
the error is discovered).
Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as
untimely, we do not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding the underlying merits
of the motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --