
    Francisco BOLANOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74260.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2006.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioners.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration, Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco B oíanos and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners’ only contention, that the “stop-time” provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l), is unconstitutional, is foreclosed by Ram, 243 F.3d at 517-18 (observing that the statute does not authorize post-charge accumulation of time toward the physical presence requirement and rejecting equal protection and due process challenges to the “stop-time” rule). We are not persuaded by petitioners’ contention that INS v. St Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), requires a different result. Cf. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599-602 (9th Cir.2002).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     