Ricardo Camacho Blancas; Francisca Cordova Camacho 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO CAMACHO BLANCAS;
FRANCISCA CORDOVA CAMACHO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73048
Agency Nos. A075-507-129
A075-533-230
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.
Ricardo Camacho Blancas and Francisca Cordova Camacho, husband and
wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-73048 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.
2002). 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 as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the
BIA’s May 24, 2005, order, and did not fall within one of the exceptions to the
ninety-day filing limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that their motion
established grounds for equitable tolling of the ninety-day limit because petitioners
failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --