
    Agustin Dominguez HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
    Agustín Dominguez Hernandez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Irma Chavez De Santiago, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Esmeralda Dominguez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Rigoberto Dominguez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Maria Guadalupe Dominguez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Imelda Dominguez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Rosa Maria Dominguez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Yolanda Dominguez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James E. Grimes, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Agustín Dominguez Hernandez, his wife, Irma Chavez de Santiago, and their six children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied reopening, when petitioners made no argument about how the general evidence they offered regarding torture in Mexico showed that petitioners themselves were more likely than not to be tortured if deported to Mexico. See id. at 1282.

Because we deny the petition on this ground, we do not consider petitioners’ contention that the BIA incorrectly determined that their motion was untimely.

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