22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T500,MEMORANDUM Jorge Ibarra Lopez and Florentina Ibarra, 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, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and they failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding their prima facie eligibility for relief. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T532,

MEMORANDUM

Jorge Ibarra Lopez and Florentina Ibarra, 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, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and they failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding their prima facie eligibility for relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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