Jorge Ibarra Lopez; Florentina Ibarra 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE IBARRA LOPEZ; FLORENTINA
IBARRA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73481
Agency Nos. A079-536-171
A079-539-120
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Ibarra Lopez and Florentina Ibarra, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73481 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295
F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they failed to present material
evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
(requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that
conditions in country of nationality had changed).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding their prima facie eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --