Case Name: Nestor Tecuapetla CAMPOS; Lorena Del Carmen Barrera Hinojosa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 07-71822
Parties: Nestor Tecuapetla CAMPOS; Lorena Del Carmen Barrera Hinojosa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
Nestor Tecuapetla CAMPOS; Lorena Del Carmen Barrera Hinojosa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71822.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
Nestor Tecuapetla Campos, Rosemead, CA, pro se.
Lorena Del Carmen Barrera Hinojosa, Rosemead, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Di rector, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, Andrea Gevas, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM.
Nestor Tecuapetla Campos and Lorena Del Carmen Barrera Hinojosa, spouses and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than nine months after the BIA's May 2, 2006 orders dismissing Petitioners' appeals. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.