
    Santiago NUNEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70937.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 9, 2011.
    Monica Guizar, Counsel, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, 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, IKUTA, 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

Santiago Nunez, Rosa Hernandez, Adriana Nunez, Santiago Nunez, Fabian Nunez, and Jorge Nunez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of their motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because it was filed more than ten years after their final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(l), and petitioners did not establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where, despite due diligence, petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control).

We deny the government’s motion to stay proceedings.

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.
     