Carlos Llamas Panduro; Belen Llamas 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS LLAMAS PANDURO; BELEN
LLAMAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72012
Agency Nos. A096-052-797
A096-052-798
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Llamas Panduro and Belen Llamas, natives and citizen of Mexico,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-72012 2
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because they failed to set forth any new facts or present any new evidence
to demonstrate the requisite physical presence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
(providing that a motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a
hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or
other evidentiary material”).
We do not consider petitioners’ contention regarding hardship, because their
failure to establish continuous physical presence is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s January 19, 2007, order, we
lack jurisdiction to review it because this petition for review is not timely as to that
order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --