Case Name: Felix CONTRERAS; 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: 2010-06-09
Citations: 382 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 08-70155
Parties: Felix CONTRERAS; et al., 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: 653–654

Head Matter:
Felix CONTRERAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 9, 2010.
Felix Contreras, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
Maria Contreras, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
Jacinta Contreras, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
Pablo Contreras, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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
Felix Contreras, Maria Contreras, and their two children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se 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 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 id. (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.