Case Name: Servando RODRIGUEZ RINCON and Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-16
Citations: 142 F. App'x 998
Docket Number: No. 04-74463; Agency Nos. A75-681-481, A75-681-482
Parties: Servando RODRIGUEZ RINCON and Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 998–999

Head Matter:
Servando RODRIGUEZ RINCON and Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74463.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
Decided Sept. 16, 2005.
Servando Rodriguez Rincon, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Servando Rodriguez Rincon and his wife, Francisca Rodriguez Suarez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly denied Petitioners' motion to reopen as numerically barred because Petitioners had previously filed a motion to reopen, and they failed to demonstrate eligibility for any exception to the one motion rule. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Accordingly, the BIA's denial of Petitioners' motion to reopen was not arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,1039 (9th Cir.2002).
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.