Case Name: Miguel Angel ARAIZA-RAMIREZ, 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: 2008-05-01
Citations: 276 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 05-73073
Parties: Miguel Angel ARAIZA-RAMIREZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel ARAIZA-RAMIREZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73073.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 1, 2008.
Miguel Angel Araiza-Ramirez, pro se.
Carmen De La Torre, pro se.
Jovana Michel Araiza, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Angel Araiza-Ramirez, Carmen de la Torre, and their daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
In their motion to reopen, petitioners reiterated the contentions they raised in their appeal brief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen on the ground that it failed to meet the regulatory requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (a motion to reopen shall state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in construing petitioners' motion as a mo tion to reconsider and denying it because the motion failed to state any errors of fact or law as required by the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.