Case Name: Esmira ADAMIAN; Anna Edigarian, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-16
Citations: 83 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 02-70725; Agency Nos. A74-431-527, A74-431-528
Parties: Esmira ADAMIAN; Anna Edigarian, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Esmira ADAMIAN; Anna Edigarian, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 02-70725.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2003.
Decided Dec. 16, 2003.
Lea Greenberger, Encino, CA, Howard R. Davis, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Luis E. Perez, Linda S. Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, COWEN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The petitioners seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denials of their motion for reconsideration and motion to remand and supplement. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the BIA abused its discretion in denying their motion for reconsideration. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). Additionally, the petitioners' motion to remand and supplement is properly construed as a motion to reopen, and, as such, it was not timely filed. See Vare-la v. INS, 204 F.3d 1237, 1239 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000) ("A motion to reopen is the correct motion to file when seeking to present new facts not already in evidence."); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen "must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened"). Moreover, the petitioners have not demonstrated that they have met the unavailability or materiality requirements for a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) ("A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. ."). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.