Case ID: f-appx_292/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Manuel DIAZ-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72063.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 12, 2008.
    
      Elizabeth Perez, Esquire, Law Offices of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Manuel Diaz-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children.

In his motion to reopen, petitioner asserted exceptional and extremely unusual hardship based on the new evidence that his children are suffering from obesity and related conditions. We conclude that the BIA considered the new evidence, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.