FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS FERNANDO DELGADO- No. 08-74727
CARDOSO; MARIA ANTONIA
ZETINA-OJEDA, Agency Nos. A075-691-969
A095-305-224
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Fernando Delgado-Cardoso and Maria Antonia Zetina-Ojeda, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of petitioners’
motion to remand, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006),
we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the
evidence was insufficient to warrant remand, see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,
1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if
it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard and
failed to consider all of the evidence presented are not supported by the record.
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s May 31, 2007, order we lack
jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
Counsel’s April 19, 2010, motion to withdraw as counsel is granted. The
docket shall be amended to reflect that petitioners are proceeding pro se.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-74727