22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T40c,MEMORANDUM Octavio Godinez Villegas and Filiberta Godinez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because they filed the motion more than one year after the BIA’s November 9, 2006, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 ; see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T439,

MEMORANDUM

Octavio Godinez Villegas and Filiberta Godinez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because they filed the motion more than one year after the BIA’s November 9, 2006, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 ; see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.