Case Name: Jorge Rojas GUTIERREZ; Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez; Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 06-73784
Parties: Jorge Rojas GUTIERREZ; Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez; Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
Jorge Rojas GUTIERREZ; Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez; Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73784.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son Jorge Rojas Gonzalez petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioners' motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the evidence they submitted regarding their son 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."). Petitioners' contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion to reopen is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.