Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0661-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Valentin Corona LOPEZ; Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 2, 2010.
    Valentin Corona Lopez, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
    
      Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
    Edward C. Durant, OIL, John C. Cunningham, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    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

Valentin Corona Lopez and Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the successive motion was filed more than 31 months after the BIA’s March 4, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that petitioners failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the CAT, see INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039 (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law). Petitioners’ due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

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