Case ID: f-appx_275/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

Alejandro SANCHEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76268.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed April 29, 2008.
    Sarah J.M. Jones, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Norwood, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Sanchez and Maria Del Rocio Carboney, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on extreme hardship to their United States citizen daughters.

Petitioners claim that the new evidence of the male petitioner’s recent diagnosis of diabetes and gout, and new evidence of the younger daughter’s educational difficulties, merit reopening. Petitioners further allege that their due process rights were violated by the BIA’s failure to allow them to present their evidence of hardship, and the BIA’s failure to examine the evidence.

The BIA considered the new evidence of alleged hardship submitted by petitioners, and we conclude that the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. We further reject petitioners’ claim that the BIA’s consideration of the new evidence constituted a due process violation where the BIA’s decision was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).

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