Dante Gavilano v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 431 F. App'x 548 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                MAY 04 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DANTE CARLOS GAVILANO; et al.,                   No. 09-70979
    09-70982
    Petitioner,                            09-70984
    v.                                             Agency No. A095-198-936
    A095-198-938
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,                      A095-198-939
    Respondent.
    MEMORANDUM *
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 20, 2011 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    In these consolidated petitions for review, Dante Carlos Gavilano and his
    family, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motions to reconsider and
    *
    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).
    reopen. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of
    discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS,
    
    311 F.3d 960
    , 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petitions for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to
    reconsider. The motions failed to specify any error of fact or law with respect to
    the BIA’s dispositive determination that petitioners’ motions to reopen was
    untimely and that they failed to establish they were entitled to equitable tolling.
    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (b)(1); see also 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”).
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to
    reopen where petitioners failed to demonstrate that their additional evidence was
    previously unavailable. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(1); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 
    423 F.3d 977
    , 984 (9th Cir. 2005).
    PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                              09-70979
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-70979

Citation Numbers: 431 F. App'x 548

Judges: Paez, Rymer, Thomas

Filed Date: 5/4/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023