Case ID: f-appx_285/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberto Urzua MORENO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70618.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2008.
    
    Filed July 23, 2008.
    Roberto Urzua Moreno, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
    Maria Guadalupe Gamez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
    DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Cac-District Counsel, 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: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen because it was filed on October 22, 2007, more than 90 days after the May 2, 2006 final administrative decision was rendered. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture because petitioners failed to meet the exception to the 90-day time limit based on changed circumstances in Mexico. See id.; see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).

The motion for a stay of removal pending review is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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