Case Name: Blas CASTILLO-TAPIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 331 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 06-74233
Parties: Blas CASTILLO-TAPIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
Blas CASTILLO-TAPIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74233.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, Stacy Stif-fel Paddack, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Blas Castillo-Tapia, and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in denying petitioners' untimely motion to reopen. See id. at 1039 (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA's December 3, 2003, order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.