Flores v. Holder
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Roderick Go v. Eric Holder, Jr. (9th Cir. 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
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 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 *774 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.