Octavio Godinez Villegas; Filiberta Godinez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OCTAVIO GODINEZ VILLEGAS;
FILIBERTA GODINEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71441
Agency Nos. A079-517-623
A079-517-624
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Octavio Godinez Villegas and Filiberta Godinez, husband and wife and
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71441 2
assistance of counsel. We 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because they filed the motion more than one year after the
BIA’s November 9, 2006, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed
to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897; see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th
Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --