
    Neftali Ismael SANCHEZ-FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2010.
    Shan D. Potts, Esquire, Law Offices of Larry W. Smith, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Neftalí Ismael Sanchez-Flores and family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen. 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 questions of law. 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 as untimely where it was filed almost six years after the BIA’s June 17, 2002, order dismissing their underlying appeal, and petitioners failed to demonstrate they qualified for an exception to the time limit or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) — (3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003). It follows that petitioners’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.
     