Maria Merced Resendiz De Roldan; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA MERCED RESENDIZ DE
ROLDAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74402
Agency Nos. A076-860-402
A076-860-405
A076-860-407
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Merced Resendiz De Roldan, Apolonia Roldan-Resendiz, and Mirella
Roldan-Resendiz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74402 2
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s June 3,
2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
petitioners failed to demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing
because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --