Case Name: Jose Antonio Lopez NAVA; Alma Fabiola Lopez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 06-74006
Parties: Jose Antonio Lopez NAVA; Alma Fabiola Lopez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio Lopez NAVA; Alma Fabiola Lopez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
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, Lyle D. Jent-zer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
José Antonio Lopez Nava and Alma Fa-biola Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their fourth motion to reopen. They contend that their applications for cancellation of removal should be granted. The petitioners timely petitioned for review only of the Board's decision of July 18, 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). They do not, however, address the Board's ruling that their fourth motion to reopen was numerically barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.