Case Name: Federico Cibrian CONTRERAS; Maria De Jesus Sanchez Quintero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-09
Citations: 382 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 07-72163
Parties: Federico Cibrian CONTRERAS; Maria De Jesus Sanchez Quintero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Federico Cibrian CONTRERAS; Maria De Jesus Sanchez Quintero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72163.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 9, 2010.
Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Andrea Gevas, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Federico Cibrian Contreras and Maria de Jesus Sanchez Quintero, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal and denying their motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We do not reach petitioners' contention regarding physical presence because the hardship determination is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to remand because the BIA considered the evidence petitioners 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 DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.