
    Martin Vega GUZMAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74713.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2008.
    
    Filed May 16, 2008.
    Martin Vega Guzman, pro se.
    Rosa Martinez Gonzalez, pro se.
    Jesus Vega Martinez, pro se.
    W. Manning Evans, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS 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

Petitioners seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. Petitioners’ general evidence of torture does not demonstrate a prima facie case that they, in particular, would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Kamalthas, 251 F.3d at 1284. Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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