FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA EUGENIA HERRERA, No. 07-70290
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-451-368
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.
Maria Eugenia Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 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). We deny the petition for review.
Herrera’s contention that the BIA overlooked the basis of the motion is not
supported by the record. To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s
denial of the motion to reopen, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th
Cir. 2006), we conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera’s
motion to reopen based on new evidence of hardship because the BIA considered
the evidence and acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was
insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. 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 07-70290