Case Name: Angel Munoz MORALES and Alejandra Munoz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 07-71211
Parties: Angel Munoz MORALES and Alejandra Munoz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
Angel Munoz MORALES and Alejandra Munoz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71211.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 5, 2011.
Mario Acosta, Jr., Elsa I. Martinez, Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District, 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, Russell J.E. Verby, Barry J. Pettinato, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Angel Munoz Morales and Alejandra Munoz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners' motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) ("The pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.