Veronica Gasga Sierra; Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERONICA GASGA SIERRA; CIRILO
ANTONIO SIERRA VASQUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74375
Agency Nos. A075-476-095
A075-475-327
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Veronica Gasga Sierra and Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-74375 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’
motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not show that they
acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales,
491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --