Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0801-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Antonio NAVA-HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71840.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 16, 2010.
    Juan Antonio Nava-Hernandez, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Agripina Nava, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Roberto Antonio Nava-Garcia, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Antonio Nava-Hernandez, Agripi-na Nava, and their son, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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), and de novo legal questions and alleged constitutional violations, Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 496 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence they submitted and acted within its broad 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”).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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