
    Miguel Angel SANTIAGO-GARCIA; Margarita Sanchez, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72163, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
    Miguel Angel Santiago-Garda, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Margarita Sanchez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James E. Grimes, Mark C. Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Angel Santiago-Garcia and Margarita Sanchez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen to seek repapering. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners would have been ineligible for suspension relief regardless of the stop-time rule, because the immigration judge found they failed to show the requisite hardship. Accordingly the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen to seek repapering. See id.; 65 Fed.Reg. 71273 (2000) (proposed 8 C.F.R. § 240.81) (“An alien may request repapering” if he is “[sjtatutorily eligible for suspension of deportation under former section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the time of application for repapering but for the application of the stop-time rule in section 240A(d)(l).”).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     