Case Name: Antonio Martinez AYALA; Celia Judith Serrano Martinez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-29
Citations: 216 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 05-74100
Parties: Antonio Martinez AYALA; Celia Judith Serrano Martinez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
Antonio Martinez AYALA; Celia Judith Serrano Martinez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74100.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2006.
Filed Dec. 29, 2006.
Antonio Martinez Ayala, Duarte, CA, pro se.
Celia Judith Serrano Martinez, Duarte, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Carol Federighi, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio Martinez Ayala and Celia Judith Serrano Martinez, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, see 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 petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely, because they did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Petitioners' reliance on Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2000), is misplaced. In that case, the 90-day time limit for motions to reopen did not apply because petitioner had been ordered deported before March 22, 1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2).
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.