Blanca Estela Campos; David Esteban Campos-Vega 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BLANCA ESTELA CAMPOS; DAVID
ESTEBAN CAMPOS-VEGA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72235
Agency Nos. A075-763-520
A075-112-305
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Blanca Estela Campos and David Esteban Campos-Vega, 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72235 2
reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed over
21 months after the BIA’s March 20, 2006, final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico
to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number filing limitations,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --