Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0789-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ismael Barba ALMARAZ; Ines Corona Estrada, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 3, 2009.
    John Ayala, Esquire, Alma Cobos-Aya-la, Cobos & Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fas-cett, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ismael Barba Almaraz and Ines Corona Estrada, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

In their motion to reopen, petitioners offered new evidence of hardship demonstrating that their United States citizen son had been diagnosed with a speech and language impediment resulting in academic difficulties. We conclude that the BIA considered the new evidence, 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) (the BIA’s denial of motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred by failing to extend their voluntary departure period is unavailing.

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