Case Name: Luciano PEREZ-GARCIA; Maria Hortensia Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 05-75923
Parties: Luciano PEREZ-GARCIA; Maria Hortensia Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Luciano PEREZ-GARCIA; Maria Hortensia Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75923.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 24, 2007.
Daniel Shanfield, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Melissa Neiman- Kelting, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luciano Perez-Garcia and Maria Hortensia Hernandez seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence the petitioners submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.").
The petitioners' contention that the BIA used the wrong standard in denying their motion is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.