Case Name: Valentin Corona LOPEZ; Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 06-74575
Parties: Valentin Corona LOPEZ; Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 746–746

Head Matter:
Valentin Corona LOPEZ; Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74575.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007.
Filed May 14, 2007.
Valentin Corona Lopez, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jeffrey Leist, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' fourth motion to reopen proceedings.
We have reviewed the record, respondent's opposition to the motion for a stay of removal pending review, and petitioners' response to the court's order to show cause. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.