Reveca Flores; Martin Flores Ramirez 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).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REVECA FLORES;
MARTIN FLORES RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72745
Agency Nos. A079-533-981
A079-533-980
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reveca Flores and Martin Flores Ramirez, 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
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 06-72745 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft,
381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) as
untimely because they did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), petitioners failed to demonstrate
material changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), and they did not establish prima
facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility for relief).
We reject petitioners’ contention that there are no time limits for filing a
motion to reopen to apply for CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --