Case Name: Trinidad Marilu PAULET DE FLORES; 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: 2010-02-23
Citations: 367 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 06-75572
Parties: Trinidad Marilu PAULET DE FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
Trinidad Marilu PAULET DE FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
Trinidad Marilu Paulet de Flores, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Tucker Sandler, Law Offices of Tucker H. Sandler, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Juan Aurelio Flores Lazo, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Juan Alonso Flores Paulet, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Emily Flores Paulet, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Trinidad Marilu Paulet De Flores, Juan Aurelio Flores Lazo, Juan Alonso Flores Paulet, and Emily Flores Paulet, natives and citizens of Peru, petition 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, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners' untimely motion to reopen because the motion failed to pres ent materially changed circumstances in Peru. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945.
Petitioners' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.