Case Name: Cain HERNANDEZ SERRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-30
Citations: 398 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 08-71738
Parties: Cain HERNANDEZ SERRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 198–198

Head Matter:
Cain HERNANDEZ SERRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71738.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
John Ayala, Esquire, Alma Cobos-Ayala, Cobos & Ayala, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner.
Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Andrea Gevas, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Cain Hernandez Serrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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). 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"). Hernandez Serrano's contention that the BIA did not review all the evidence fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). It follows that his 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.