
    Miguel Castillo GARCIA; Cruz Sandra Medina Toro, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 28, 2011.
    Peter Singh, Esquire, Peter Singh & Associates, P.C., Fresno, CA, for Petitioners.
    Todd J. Cochran, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Castillo Garcia and Cruz Sandra Medina Toro, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motions 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to reopen as untimely where they filed their motions more than four years after the final removal order in their cases, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available where “petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”); see also Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.2007) (due diligence established where petitioner “demonstrated a steadfast pursuit of his case”).

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