Ofelia Flores Velasco; Magdalena Flores Velasco v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OFELIA FLORES VELASCO;
MAGDALENA FLORES VELASCO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74217
Agency Nos. A079-525-152
A079-525-153
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ofelia and Magdalena Flores Velasco, sisters and natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 06-74217 2
to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782
(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal
where neither petitioner had a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D);
Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must reveal
a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been
satisfied).
To the extent that petitioners challenge the BIA’s September 16, 2005,
November 29, 2005, or February 2, 2006, orders, we lack jurisdiction to review
them because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --