
    Reynaldo Dela Cruz CRUZ; Erlinda Saguiguit Cruz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72161.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
    Jeremiah Johnson, Reeves & Associates, APLC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Justin Robert Markel, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Reynaldo Déla Cruz Cruz and Erlinda Saguiguit Cruz, natives and citizens of the Philippines, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mo hammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s June 23, 2004, order dismissing their appeal, 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 is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

The BIA’s failure to address petitioners’ request for an additional period of voluntary departure was harmless error. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229e(b)(l) (Attorney General may permit voluntary departure if immigration judge enters order granting that relief at the conclusion of removal proceedings).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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