Case Name: Jose Luis Correa RODRIGUEZ; Fidela Maria Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-30
Citations: 360 F. App'x 922
Docket Number: No. 06-72652
Parties: Jose Luis Correa RODRIGUEZ; Fidela Maria Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 922–923

Head Matter:
Jose Luis Correa RODRIGUEZ; Fidela Maria Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72652.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 30, 2009.
Alma Cobos-Ayala, Cobos & Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Jose Luis Correa Rodriguez and Fidela Maria Martinez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence presented with the motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039 (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law"). It follows that petitioners' due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.