Case ID: f-appx_477/html/0465-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jilmer Garcia ORTIZ and Arcenia Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73483.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed June 29, 2012.
    Raul Ernesto Godinez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Stefanie A. Svoren, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jilmer Garcia Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and Arcenia Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, husband and wife, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners submitted additional new evidence of hardship to their United States citizen son, Jason, to support their application for cancellation of removal. The BIA considered the evidence that Jason was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and his involvement with an Individualized Education Program. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen on the ground that the new evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite hardship, and prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See id. at 912-13.

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