Case Name: Jorge AVILA-CERVANTES, 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: 262 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 06-73422
Parties: Jorge AVILA-CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Jorge AVILA-CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., Nehal H. Kamani, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, San Diego, CA, 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
Jorge Avila-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the evidence of Avila-Cervantes' U.S. citizen son's new, undiagnosed medical condition and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.8d 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.