Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beant KAUR; Harnek Singh, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74735.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 7, 2010.
    Beant Kaur, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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

Beant Kaur and Harnek Singh, wife and husband, and natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reissue the BIA’s March 23, 2007, order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.

Although respondent concedes that petitioners’ motion was timely filed, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion on the merits on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reissuing its previous order. See 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.”); see also Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 904 n. 1 (9th Cir.2010) (“A motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen.”). Because the BIA acted within its discretion, we need not address petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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