FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOROTEO ANTONIO-HERNANDEZ, No. 09-70402
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-611-065
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.
Doroteo Antonio-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Antonio-
Hernandez’s motion to reopen, 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 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”).
To the extent Antonio-Hernandez contends that the BIA failed to consider
all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome
the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at
603.
Finally, Antonio-Hernandez’s contentions that the BIA failed to accept his
mother’s statement as true and violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) are not supported
by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70402