Urrunaga Ramal v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM ***

Roberto Abelardo Urrunaga Ramal, Flor de Maria Valverde-Urrunaga, Sandro *950 Urrunaga Valverde, and Saritt Urrunaga Valverde, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), we grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion when it concluded that the 90 day deadline for a motion to reopen was tolled only until Petitioners learned about the BIA’s May 24, 2002 dismissal of their appeal. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that 90 day deadline for motion to reopen is subject to equitable tolling where petitioner is victim of deception, fraud, or error as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering deception, fraud, or error). Petitioners claimed that while they had notice of the BIA’s decision in January 2003, an immigration consultant told them to ignore it because they had pending…