Case ID: f-appx_172/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Carmen LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Filed March 1, 2006.
    Maria Carmen Lopez-Rodriguez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Maria Guadalupe Gomez-Rodriguez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Carmen Lopez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We review for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez-Rodriguez’s motion to reconsider because the BIA considered and addressed Lopez-Rodriguez’s evidence and arguments regarding the potential hardship to both her living and unborn children, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 792-93 (“[T]he BIA must issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to [reconsider].”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       The 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.