Case Name: Gonzalo BUENROSTRO; Maria Buenrostro, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 05-76587
Parties: Gonzalo BUENROSTRO; Maria Buenrostro, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Gonzalo BUENROSTRO; Maria Buenrostro, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 23, 2007.
John E. Ricci, Esq., Law Office Of Ricci & Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Allen W. Hausman, Attorney Fax, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gonzalo and Maria Buenrostro, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, 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 where petitioners failed to present any of the promised affidavits to the BIA to support their contention of hardship to Maria Buenrostro's parents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen "shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material").
Petitioners' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.