RAMON PRECIADO-JIMENEZ and MARIA DELIA PRECIADO 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAMON PRECIADO-JIMENEZ and
MARIA DELIA PRECIADO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73888
Agency No. A075-707-339
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Preciado-Jimenez and Maria Delia Preciado, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-73888
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ fourth motion
to reopen as untimely and numerically-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the time
and number limitations on motions to reopen on the ground that petitioners did not
establish due diligence or prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of their
prior attorney. See Iturribarria v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --