
    Jose Luis ARREOLA-ALVARADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74644.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    
      Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, OIL, Katharine Clark, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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

Jose Luis Arreola-Alvarado and Virginia Nieto-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion 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, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred because it was filed approximately one year and six months after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C)(i). Petitioners did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling because they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 598-99.

Petitioners’ motion for a stay of their voluntary departure period is denied.

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