RICO-LOPEZ v. HOLDER, 361 Fed.Appx. 801 (9th Cir. 2010)

Jaime RICO-LOPEZ; Lilia Rico, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71276.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted December 15, 2009.[*]
Filed January 6, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Page 802

Jaime Rico-Lopez, Jaehoh Suh, Law Office of Jaehoh Suh, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioners.

Jacob A. Bashyrov, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div/Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A075-731-620, A075-731-621.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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 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.

jdjungle