Case Name: Ruben PADILLA-AGUIRRE and Maria Luisa Barajas-Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-29
Citations: 407 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 09-73652
Parties: Ruben PADILLA-AGUIRRE and Maria Luisa Barajas-Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
Ruben PADILLA-AGUIRRE and Maria Luisa Barajas-Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73652.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Dec. 29, 2010.
Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.
Allison Frayer, Ilissa M. Gould, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, 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
Ruben Padilla-Aguirre and Maria Luisa Barajas-Vasquez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their applications for cancellation of removal.
In their motion to reopen, petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship that Barajas-Vasquez's legal permanent resident father had suffered a knee injury requiring an operation. We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish extreme hardship, and was insufficient to warrant reopening of the cancellation application. 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.