Case Name: Rogelio RAMIREZ-GARCIA; Margarita Avalos-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-09
Citations: 382 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 08-70650
Parties: Rogelio RAMIREZ-GARCIA; Margarita Avalos-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 656–656

Head Matter:
Rogelio RAMIREZ-GARCIA; Margarita Avalos-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70650.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 9, 2010.
Sarah J. Jones, Esquire, Law Office of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District •Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy Stiffel Pad-dack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rogelio Ramirez-Garcia and Margarita Avalos-Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their 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. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed approximately one year and nine months after the BIA's final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)(motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.