Case Name: Rene TORRES FLORES; Elsa Guillermina Torres; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-22
Citations: 367 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 07-73506
Parties: Rene TORRES FLORES; Elsa Guillermina Torres; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
Rene TORRES FLORES; Elsa Guillermina Torres; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73506.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
Rene Torres Flores, Paramount, CA, pro se.
Elsa Guillermina Torres, Paramount, CA, pro se.
Elsa Berenice Torres Castaneda, Paramount, CA, pro se.
Marisol Torres Castaneda, Paramount, CA, pro se.
Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Rene Torres Flores, his wife, Elsa Guil-lermina Torres, and their two minor children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their 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, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Torres Flores' motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted 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 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.