Jose Luis Juarez-Zamorano; Gabriela Murillo Juarez 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS JUAREZ-ZAMORANO;
GABRIELA MURILLO JUAREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71744
Agency Nos. A076-844-289
A076-844-290
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Juarez-Zamorano and Gabriela Murillo Juarez, married natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-71744 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,
Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that they
warranted equitable tolling, see Valeriano, 474 F.3d at 674-75.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1157-59
(9th Cir. 2002).
We also lack jurisdiction to review whether the BIA properly reduced
petitioners’ voluntary departure period in its January 8, 2004 order, because this
petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also
Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasons
for denying the motion to reopen is not supported by the record.
Petitioners’ motion for stay of voluntary departure is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --