
    Fredy Alejandro HIDALGO-SANTACRUZ and Elena Mago Hidalgo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    April 20, 2011 
    
    Filed May 4, 2011.
    Fredy Alejandro Hidalgo-Santacruz, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Elena Mago Hidalgo, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Claire Workman, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fredy Alejandro Hidalgo-Santacruz and Elena Mago Hidalgo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying them motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the January 15, 2003, removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i)(A)(l), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Itumbama v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003), or fell within the exceptions to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4) (iii) (A) (2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a); Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice of Appear ... be in any language other than English.”).

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