Case Name: Sara BARGAS-MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 05-75911
Parties: Sara BARGAS-MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Sara BARGAS-MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75911.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Sean Olender, Olender Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sara Bargas-Martinez and Margarito Roman-Rios, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The Board considered the evidence petitioners submitted concerning their sons' newly diagnosed psychological conditions 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 only if it is "arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law."). Petitioners' contention that the Board deprived them of due process by failing to consider the evidence cumulatively is not supported by the record.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.