Case ID: f-appx_428/html/0787-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tomas Rivas OROZCO; Esther Rivas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74358.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 26, 2011.
    Tomas Rivas Orozco, Hacienda Heights, CA, pro se.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Blah* O’Connor, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tomas Rivas Orozco and Esther Rivas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. With respect to cancellation of removal, the BIA considered the evidence petitioners submitted 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 a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”). With respect to relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT protection. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2010).

To the extent it is raised, we lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ hardship contention relating to the BIA’s February 26, 2008, order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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