Rico-Lopez v. Holder

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME RICO-LOPEZ; LILIA RICO, No. 07-71276 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A075-731-620 A075-731-621 v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges Jaime Rico-Lopez and Lilia Rico, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under * 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). AP/Research 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of 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. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence petitioners submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that 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) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”). Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. AP/Research 2 07-71276