Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Antonio LLAMAS REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70365.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 2, 2010.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Antonio Llamas Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Llamas Reyes’ motion to remand, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant remand. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

We reject Llamas Reyes’ due process claim because the BIA’s decision explained its analysis of the evidence Llamas Reyes submitted with the motion to remand, and reflects that the BIA properly considered the issues raised by Llamas Reyes’ motion. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004) (“[T]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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.