Case Name: Raul Montelongo GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-02
Citations: 347 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 07-72212
Parties: Raul Montelongo GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 347
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
Raul Montelongo GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72212.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 2, 2009.
Raul Montelongo Gomez, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raul Montelongo Gomez, 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. Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Gomez's motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence Gomez submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that abuse of discretion will be found when denial of motion was 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.