Case ID: f-appx_395/html/0371-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nicolas MIRANDA-NAVARRETTE; Maria De Jesus Miranda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
    Nicolas Miranda-Navarrette, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Maria de Jesus Miranda, pro se.
    Stefanie N. Hennes, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicolas Miranda-Navarrette and Maria De Jesus Miranda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), 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 they previously filed a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), the second motion was filed more than 90 days after the final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and petitioners failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that were particular to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

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