Neftali Sanchez-Flores, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-73230 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 01 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NEFTALI ISMAEL SANCHEZ-FLORES; et al., No. 08-73230 Agency Nos. A076-370-739 A076-370-740 A076-370-741 A076-370-742 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. 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. Neftali Ismael Sanchez-Flores and family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo * 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). questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed almost six years after the BIA s June 17, 2002, order dismissing their underlying appeal, and petitioners failed to demonstrate they qualified for an exception to the time limit or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003). It follows that petitioners due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). Petitioners remaining contentions are unpersuasive. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-73230

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.