Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Erica LEON-DE JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72101.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 19, 2012.
    Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William Clark Minick, OIL, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, 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

Erica Leon-De Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Leon-De Jimenez’s motion to reopen on the ground that the evidence she submitted regarding her daughter’s depression and medical condition, and her father’s medical condition, was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See id. (prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied); 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.