Rogelio Ramirez-Garcia; Margarita Avalos-Garcia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROGELIO RAMIREZ-GARCIA;
MARGARITA AVALOS-GARCIA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70650
Agency Nos. A095-407-975
A095-407-976
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Ramirez-Garcia and Margarita Avalos-Garcia, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70650 2
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F. 3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed approximately one year and nine months
after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)(motion to
reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --