Case Name: Julio Cesar Barrios DIAZ; Monica Barrios, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-19
Citations: 270 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 06-74108
Parties: Julio Cesar Barrios DIAZ; Monica Barrios, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
Julio Cesar Barrios DIAZ; Monica Barrios, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74108.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 19, 2008.
Julio Cesar Barrios Diaz, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Monica Barrios, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
William C. Peachey, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and MeKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julio Cesar Barrios Diaz and Monica Barrios, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order construing their motion for reconsideration as a motion to reopen and denying it as exceeding the numerical limitations set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The petitioners had presented previous motions to reconsider and to reopen, and they do not argue that the numerical limitations should be waived. Compare Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits). We therefore deny the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.