Case Name: Angel APOLINAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 141 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 04-71649, A93-231-822; Agency No. A93-231-822
Parties: Angel APOLINAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Angel APOLINAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71649, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Michael J. Selph, Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angel Apolinar-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA's decision to deny ApolinarLopez's motion to reopen was not "arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law." See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). The BIA acted within its broad discretion in concluding that the additional evidence Apolinar-Lopez presented with his motion to reopen was insufficient to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. See id.
Apolinar-Lopez's further contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.