Rafael Verduzco Partida; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAFAEL VERDUZCO PARTIDA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74950
Agency Nos. A079-520-580
A078-112-390
A079-520-581
A079-520-582
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.
Rafael Verduzco Partida and family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
SEP 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74950 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’
motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that
they were entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled where a
petitioner acts with due diligence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --