
    Maria Eva DURAN; et. al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72174.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 2, 2009.
    Maria Eva Duran, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Jessica Duran-Cortes, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Daniel Ivan Duran-Cortes, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District 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, Rebecca Anne Ni-burg, Esquire, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Eva Duran and her children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their- motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the BIA’s final order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative order).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention regarding estoppel because they did not raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

The Clerk shall amend the docket to remove Jose Eustacio Duran-Macedo, [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ] as a petitioner.

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