Case ID: f-appx_194/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar Osvaldo MENDOZA VARGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74794.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Decided July 31, 2006.
    Cesar Osvaldo Mendoza Vargas, Paso Robles, CA, pro se.
    Erika Pacheco, Paso Robles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Osvaldo Medoza Vargas and Erika Pacheco, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

The Board acted within its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to submit new or previously unavailable evidence in support of their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a) and (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.