Case Name: Jose Bustos MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 261 F. App'x 956
Docket Number: No. 06-70978
Parties: Jose Bustos MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 956–957

Head Matter:
Jose Bustos MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70978.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Jose Bustos Morales, San Pablo, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Colette J. Winston, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Jose Bustos Morales petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.
The BIA considered the new evidence Bustos Morales submitted regarding his daughter Elena 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.").
The BIA abused its discretion in failing to address Bustos Morales' motion to reconsider and we remand for further consideration. See Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding in light of BIA's unexplained failure to address petitioner's claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.