Pedro Perez -Velasquez, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74495 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO ANTONIO PEREZ VELASQUEZ; ANA BERTHA PEREZ, No. 08-74495 Agency Nos. A076-366-359 A076-366-360 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, 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. Pedro Antonio Perez-Velasquez and Ana Bertha Perez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than three years after the final administrative order was entered in their case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners untimely request to withdraw from their grant of voluntary departure. See Dada v. Mukasey, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 2319 (2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-74495

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.