Jose Adolfo Lamas Rivera; Agueda Velazquez De Lamas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ADOLFO LAMAS RIVERA;
AGUEDA VELAZQUEZ DE LAMAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75248
Agency Nos. A095-192-203
A075-645-758
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Adolfo Lamas Rivera and Agueda Velazquez De Lamas, husband and
wife and 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
decision denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
FILED
OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-75248 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 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). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the final
administrative order was entered in their case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and
petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for equitable tolling of the
motions deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --