Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Barbara GALINDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71737.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 30, 2010.
    Maria Barbara Galindo, Burbank, CA, pro se.
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Barbara Galindo, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo due process claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Galindo’s motion to reopen because the BIA properly considered the new evidence submitted by Galindo, 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 only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

Galindo’s claim that the BIA violated due process by failing to address the overall hardship to all her qualifying relatives is not supported by the record.

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