Samuel Gallegos Hernandez; Maria Hilda Gallegos 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SAMUEL GALLEGOS HERNANDEZ;
MARIA HILDA GALLEGOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-74363
09-70217
Agency Nos. A096-055-007
A096-055-008
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Samuel Gallegos Hernandez and
Maria Hilda Gallegos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen
and reconsider. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen
FILED
FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70217 2
or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We
deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gallegos and Gallegos
Hernandez’s motion to reopen as time-and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gallegos and Gallegos
Hernandez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of
fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying reopening. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001)
(en banc).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --