Case ID: f-appx_309/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos DIAZ-GOMEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74663.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
    Carlos Diaz-Gomez, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Maria Estela Diaz, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Nancy Elizabeth Diaz-Rico, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Nicole N. Murley, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Emily Anne Radford, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Diaz-Gomez, Maria Estela Diaz, and Nancy Elizabeth Diaz-Rico, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.2007), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen because Petitioners failed to submit previously unavailable and material evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

To the extent Petitioners seek review of the BIA’s July 20, 2007 order dismissing their appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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