Jesus Enrique Ramos-Madrid; Maria Concepcion Chavez- Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JESUS ENRIQUE RAMOS-MADRID;
MARIA CONCEPCION CHAVEZ-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70368
Agency Nos. A075-750-001
A075-750-002
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Enrique Ramos-Madrid and Maria Concepcion Chavez-Rodriguez,
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
JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70368 2
assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than 11 months after the BIA’s July 25,
2006, orders dismissing the underlying appeals, 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”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 25, 2006, orders dismissing
petitioners’ underlying appeals because this petition for review is not timely as to
those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --