Case Name: Mario Alfonso Lopez HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-27
Citations: 215 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 05-72930
Parties: Mario Alfonso Lopez HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
Mario Alfonso Lopez HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72930.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 27, 2006.
Mario Alfonso Lopez Hernandez, Pomona, CA, pro se.
Conrada Maria Elena Lopez, Pomona, CA, pro se.
CAC-District 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, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Alfonso Lopez Hernandez and Maria Elena Lopez Conrada, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions pro se 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, see 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 the motion to reopen as untimely, because petitioners did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Petitioners' reliance on Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2000) is misplaced. In that ease, the 90-day time limit for motions to reopen did not apply because petitioner had been ordered deported before March 22, 1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.