
    Jose Adrian Guerrero SAAVEDRA; Marina Guerrero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73777.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
    
    Filed March 9, 2009.
    Jose Adrian Guerrero Saavedra, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Marina Guerrero, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, 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, and HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

Petitioners’ claim for protection under CAT failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). Because petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, respondent’s 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.
     