Case Name: Shamsun Nahar IQBAL; Sami Jony Iqbal, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 221 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 05-73439
Parties: Shamsun Nahar IQBAL; Sami Jony Iqbal, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Shamsun Nahar IQBAL; Sami Jony Iqbal, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73439.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
Shamsun Nahar Iqbal, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Sami Jony Iqbal, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., Jennifer Paisner, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shamsun Nahar Iqbal and her son Sami Jony Iqbal, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners' second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA's decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed cir cumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limits, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii).
The petitioners' request for judicial notice is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.