Case ID: f-appx_368/html/0746-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo Negrete ROSILA; Ma. Magdalena Garcia Alvarez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Pablo Negrete Rosila, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    Ma. Magdalena Garcia Alvarez, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    Jeffery R. Leist, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Negrete Rosila and Ma. Magdalena Garcia Alvarez, spouses and 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen where the new evidence they presented did not support prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.