Case ID: f-appx_276/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luz Maria CABRERA; Jose Julio Cabrera Sanabria, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-75929, 05-75945.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed May 1, 2008.
    Nathan M. Zaslow, San Jose, CA, Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Office of Walter R. Pineda, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioners.
    Mary Jane Candaux, Thomas Fatouros, Kristin K. Edison, James A. Hunolt, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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

In these consolidated petitions, Luz Maria Cabrera and her husband Jose Julio Cabrera Sanabria, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, because the BIA considered petitioners’ evidence regarding then* daughter’s health and acted within its broad discretion in determining that petitioners failed to demonstrate that the evidence was unavailable at the time of their removal hearing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a), (c)(1); see also Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005); Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966-67 (9th Cir.2006).

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