Case Name: Roberto Lopez SALGADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 954
Docket Number: No. 07-72273
Parties: Roberto Lopez SALGADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
Roberto Lopez SALGADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.
Filed Dec. 21, 2007.
Roberto Lopez Salgado, Madras, OR, pro se.
Carmen Gamboa Lopez, Madras, OR, pro se.
Pedro Antonio Lopez Gamboa, Madras, OR, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Portland, OR, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., Terri Leon-Benner, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order de nying as untimely petitioners' motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen because petitioners' motion to reopen was filed more than one year after the final administrative order and did not meet a regulatory exception to the 90-day filing requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition of this petition for review is granted. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
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. The motion for a stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.