Case Name: Jose Martin DIAZ FLORES; 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: 2007-06-12
Citations: 234 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 07-70578
Parties: Jose Martin DIAZ FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
Jose Martin DIAZ FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70578.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2007 .
Filed June 12, 2007.
Jose Martin Diaz Flores, Pomona, CA, pro se.
Maricela Diaz, Pomona, CA, pro se.
Edgar Martin Diaz, Pomona, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Lauren E. Fascett, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, 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' motion to reopen removal proceedings.
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); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.