FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ANTONIO NAVA-HERNANDEZ; No. 08-71840
et al.,
Agency Nos. A096-362-284
Petitioners, A096-362-285
A096-362-286
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Nava-Hernandez, Agripina Nava, and their son, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(9th Cir. 2003), and de novo legal questions and alleged constitutional violations,
Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 496 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence they submitted and acted within
its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant
reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of
a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law”).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71840
Juan Nava-Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Combined Opinion