Case Name: Herberto Nava MENDEZ; 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: 2008-05-16
Citations: 278 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 07-74906
Parties: Herberto Nava MENDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN; Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
Herberto Nava MENDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74906.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2008.
Filed May 16, 2008.
Herberto Nava Mendez, Pomona, CA, pro se.
Alicia Nava Reveles, Pomona, CA, pro se.
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, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN; Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioners Herberto Nava Mendez and Alicia Nava Reveles petition this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") November 20, 2007 order denying their motion to reopen as untimely filed.
We have reviewed the record and petitioners' response to this court's March 31, 2008 order to show cause. We conclude that summary disposition is appropriate because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
Specifically, the regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed with the BIA within ninety days after the mailing of the BIA's decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In this case, the record reflects that petitioners' motion to reopen was filed with the BIA on June 28, 2007, 92 days after the BIA's March 28, 2007 order dismissing petitioners' appeal. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' untimely motion to reconsider. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
Petitioners allege that the BIA received their motion to reopen on June 26, 2007, and attach as proof a return mailing receipt stamped by the BIA Clerk's Office showing that the BIA Clerk's Office received petitioners' envelope on the 27th day of an unidentified month in 2007. To the extent the petitioners attempt to introduce new evidence related to the date on which the BIA allegedly received them motion to reopen, this court will not consider such evidence because it is not a part of the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are 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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.