Case Name: Rocio RUIZ PERALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 400 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 08-73426
Parties: Rocio RUIZ PERALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
Rocio RUIZ PERALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
Angela Novas McGill, Esquire, The Law Office of Angela Novas McGill, APC, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial, Kathryn Deangelis, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rocío Ruiz Perales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Ruiz Perales' contention, the BIA applied the correct legal standard in denying her motion to reopen. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003).
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence submitted with Ruiz Perales' motion 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.