that their attorney acted negligently in failing to timely submit a notice of appeal following the immigration judge’s adverse ruling on March 14, 2001 and in failing to inform them that the BIA had dismissed their appeal on May 1, 2002. The petitioners admit that they learned of the dismissal of their ap peal in February 2004. They did not, however, file their motion to reopen until July 2006, more than two years later. The petitioners introduced nothing to the BIA to show that they exercised the requisite “due diligence” in addressing the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, and the BIA’s determination not to equitably toll the deadline for this significant period of delay is consistent with our prior rulings. See Zheng Zhong Chen v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 267, 270 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 129-134 (2d
holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the deadline for a motion to reopen where the petitioner waited 20 months to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal