Maximino Madrigal; Yonira Madrigal-Leon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MAXIMINO MADRIGAL; YONIRA
MADRIGAL-LEON,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71334
Agency Nos. A074-823-325
A074-823-426
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Maximino Madrigal and Yonira Madrigal-Leon, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of their motion to reopen
FILED
JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-71334 2
deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646
F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eleven years after their
deportation order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed
to demonstrate the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner
who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised
due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --