Jauregui Gutierrez, et al v. Holder, No. 07-72641 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 28 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE HUMBERTO JAUREGUI GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, Nos. 07-72641 07-74329 Agency Nos. A075-523-976 A076-715-435 A076-715-436 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated cases, Jose Humberto Jauregui Gutierrez and his family, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) orders denying their motion to reopen based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and denying their motion to reconsider. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denials of motions to reopen and motions to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petitions for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA s December 5, 2002, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (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). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reconsider because petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA s June 1, 2007, order. 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 failed to adequately address their arguments and applied an incorrect legal standard are unsupported by the record. PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-72641
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
