Case Name: Carlos Ramos NUNEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 05-73423
Parties: Carlos Ramos NUNEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Carlos Ramos NUNEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73423.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
Philippe Dwelshauvers, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sean C. Fahey, U.S. Department of Jus tice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Ramos Nunez and his wife, Catalina Palacios Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nunez's motion to reopen as untimely because he did not file the motion within ninety days of the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and did not argue that an exception to the ninety-day deadline applied in his case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.