GONZALEZ v. GONZALES, 216 Fed.Appx. 631 (9th Cir. 2006)
Cesar Gonzalez GONZALEZ; Maria Araceli Gonzalez Valdez, Petitioners, v.Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71348.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted December 21, 2006.[fn*]
Filed December 29, 2006.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).
Cesar Gonzalez Gonzalez, La Puente, CA, pro se.
Maria Araceli Gonzalez Valdez, La Puente, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A75-761-079, A75-761-080.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
Cesar Gonzalez Gonzalez and Maria Araceli Gonzalez Valdez, natives and citizensPage 632
of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to re-open removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, seeIturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen 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), and did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), see8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (applicant for CAT relief must prove "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal"); Mendez-Gutierrez v.Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[P]rima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to reopen.").
Petitioners' reliance on Khourassany v. INS,208 F.3d 1096, 1099 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000), is misplaced. In that case, the 90-day time limit for motions to reopen did not apply because petitioner had been ordered deported before March 22, 1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.