Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8627513
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Pelaez v. Gonzales
No. 8627513 · Decided December 27, 2006
No. 8627513·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 27, 2006
Citation
No. 8627513
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Marcelo Flores Pelaez and Rufina Torres-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se 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. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion, see Iturribarria 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’ third motion to reopen, because it exceeded the one-motion limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and petitioners did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii). Petitioners’ reliance on Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096 , 1099 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2000) is misplaced. In that case, the time and number limits 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. 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.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Marcelo Flores Pelaez and Rufina Torres-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Marcelo Flores Pelaez and Rufina Torres-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
02INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
03The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion to reopen, because it exceeded the one-motion limit, see 8 C.F.R.
04§ 1003.2 (c)(2), and petitioners did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Marcelo Flores Pelaez and Rufina Torres-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Pelaez v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 27, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8627513 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.