Case Name: Luz Maria CABRERA; Jose Julio Cabrera Sanabria, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-01
Citations: 276 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: Nos. 05-75929, 05-75945
Parties: Luz Maria CABRERA; Jose Julio Cabrera Sanabria, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
Luz Maria CABRERA; Jose Julio Cabrera Sanabria, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-75929, 05-75945.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 1, 2008.
Nathan M. Zaslow, San Jose, CA, Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Office of Walter R. Pineda, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioners.
Mary Jane Candaux, Thomas Fatouros, Kristin K. Edison, James A. Hunolt, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washing ton, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated petitions, Luz Maria Cabrera and her husband Jose Julio Cabrera Sanabria, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen, because the BIA considered petitioners' evidence regarding then* daughter's health and acted within its broad discretion in determining that petitioners failed to demonstrate that the evidence was unavailable at the time of their removal hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(1); see also Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005); Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966-67 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.