Jose Alfonso Palacios Hernandez; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ALFONSO PALACIOS
HERNANDEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70016
Agency Nos. A095-300-791
A095-300-792
A095-300-793
A095-300-794
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alfonso Palacios Hernandez and family, 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 reopen, Delgado-Ortiz v.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70016 2
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), and we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the successive motion was filed more than 90 days after the final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present
evidence of changed conditions in Mexico particular to petitioners and their
circumstances so as to qualify for the exception to the regulatory filing limitations,
see id. at § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --