FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TUNGALAG BALCHIGSUREN; et al., No. 08-74945
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-525-500
A098-525-501
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Tungalag Balchigsuren and her daughter, natives and citizens of Mongolia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 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 as untimely because petitioners’ 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 they failed to
demonstrate material changed circumstances in Mongolia to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must
demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based
on changed circumstances). The record does not support petitioners’ contentions
that the BIA failed to accept the facts in their supporting affidavits as true and
failed to evaluate the petitioners’ new facts in the context of the country conditions
evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-74945