
    Fernando VASQUEZ-DE LA MORA and Maria De La Defensa Figueroa-Rodriguez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70978.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 4, 2011.
    Smirna Ayala, Law Offices of Ronzio & Associates, Frank E. Ronzio, Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Juria L. Jones, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief 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

Fernando Vasquez-De La Mora and Maria De La Defensa Figueroa-Rodriguez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final order of removal, 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 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”). Petitioners’ due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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