
    Luis Alberto Orozco ALCALA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75714.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
    Luis Alberto Orozco Alcala, West Covina, CA, pro se.
    Estela Carrillo Garcia, West Covina, 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, Lance L. Jolley, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div., Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, 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

Luis Alberto Orozco Alcala and Estela Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that the motion was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Petitioners contend that the time bar should not prevent consideration of their motion because they have established an exception to the time bar by demonstrating that there are changed country conditions in Mexico giving rise to their prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

The BIA acted within its discretion in concluding that petitioners’ motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). For the reasons stated by the BIA in its order denying the motion, we agree that petitioners failed to establish an exception to the bar, because petitioners failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (upholding denial of motion to reopen where petitioner introduced evidence that was too general in nature to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.)

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