Munoz Morales v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Munoz Morales v. Holder

431 F. App'x 581

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 2011

Docket07-71211

StatusUnpublished

This text of 431 F. App'x 581 (Munoz Morales v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Munoz Morales v. Holder, 431 F. App'x 581 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Munoz Morales and Alejandra Munoz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“The pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Munoz Morales and Alejandra Munoz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“The pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 F. App'x 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-morales-v-holder-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack