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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2011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
ENRIQUE FERNANDO VALDEZ No. 09-70573
MORA; ANASTACIA ANTONIA
VALDEZ, Agency Nos. A095-317-284
A095-317-285
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.
Enrique Fernando Valdez Mora and Anastacia Antonia Valdez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70573