Case ID: f-appx_417/html/0681-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrique Fernando Valdez MORA; Anastacia Antonia Valdez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70573.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 2, 2011.
    Enrique Fernando Valdez Mora, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Anastacia Antonia Valdez, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Enrique Fernando Valdez Mora and Anastacia Antonia Valdez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ motion to remand, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006), we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant remand, 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”).

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