Case Name: Rosa Elena Lopez DE DORANTES; Jose Isabel Dorantes-Espadas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 387 F. App'x 805
Docket Number: No. 08-71246
Parties: Rosa Elena Lopez DE DORANTES; Jose Isabel Dorantes-Espadas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 805–806

Head Matter:
Rosa Elena Lopez DE DORANTES; Jose Isabel Dorantes-Espadas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71246.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 16, 2010.
John Wolfgang Gehart, Lourdes Barrera Haley, Esquire, Russell M. Jauregui, Esquire, Elena Yampolsky, Esquire, Vella-noweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Rosa Elena Lopez De Dorantes and Jose Isabel Dorantes-Espadas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's removal order, and denying their motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, De Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence newly presented on appeal was insufficient to warrant a remand. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law"). Petitioners' due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).
Petitioners' remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.