GONZALO JAVIER MARTINEZ SERRANO and LOURDES MELO CORCUERA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GONZALO JAVIER MARTINEZ
SERRANO and LOURDES MELO
CORCUERA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73710
Agency Nos. A095-184-872
A095-184-873
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gonzalo Javier Martinez Serrano and Lourdes Melo Corcuera, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider removal
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73710 2
proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
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 six months after the BIA’s June 26,
2007, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed
within 90 days of the final order), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted
with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner
is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the
petitioner acts with due diligence”).
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision. 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).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard and
failed to adequately articulate its reasons for denial are not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73710 3

-- 3 of 3 --