Case Name: Maria Guadalupe SALAZAR DE TAMAYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-03
Citations: 339 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 07-73572
Parties: Maria Guadalupe SALAZAR DE TAMAYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
Maria Guadalupe SALAZAR DE TAMAYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2009.
Filed Aug. 3, 2009.
Helen B. Zebel, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Allen W. Hausman, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Guadalupe Salazar De Tamayo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 Salazar De Tamayo's motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence she 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) (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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.