Case Name: Elisangela Oliveira CARDOSO-CAETANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 07-71956
Parties: Elisangela Oliveira CARDOSO-CAETANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
Elisangela Oliveira CARDOSO-CAETANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71956.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
John E. Ricci, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci & Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Donald A. Couvillon, Esquire, OIL, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Elisangela Oliveira Cardoso-Caetano, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence Cardoso-Caetano submitted 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.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.