Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrique Deloya SERRANO; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73579.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 2, 2009.
    Enrique Deloya Serrano, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Emigdia Sorroza Cruz, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Erick Enrique Deloya Sorroza, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Cristhian Yonathan Deloya Sorroza, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Brooke Maurer, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pro se petitioners Enrique Deloya Serrano, Emigdia Sorroza Cruz, Erick Enrique Deloya Sorroza and Cristhian Yona-than Deloya Sorroza, natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying their second motion to reopen removal proceedings as numerically barred. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners do not challenge the Board’s determination that their second motion to reopen exceeded the number limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because the motion is number-barred, we deny the petition for review, and we need not address petitioners’ remaining challenges.

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