Case ID: f-appx_575/html/0772-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adriana NUNEZ and Fabian Nunez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71910.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 27, 2014.
    Nikhil M. Shah, I, Esquire, General Law Offices of Nikhil M. Shah, 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: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adriana Nunez and Fabian Nunez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed thirteen years after the agency’s final deportation order, and petitioners failed to demonstrate that conditions or circumstances for persons with disabilities have worsened in Mexico since their deportation hearing to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limits for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996.

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

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