Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario Alonso Delgado SALAS and Claudia Ivonne Montes Espinoza, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
    Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
    Mario Alonso Delgado Salas, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Claudia Ivonne Montes Espinoza, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    OIL, Jennifer Jeanette Keeney, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Alonso Delgado Salas and Claudia Ivonne Montes Espinoza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to their United States citizen child.

Petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship consisting of evidence that Claudia Espinoza has recently been diagnosed with “antepartum depression,” and that she was approximately eighteen weeks pregnant at the time of filing the motion. We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish extreme hardship to a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal, and therefore was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed on if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

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