Case Name: Francisco ALVARADO-MANJIVAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-05
Citations: 361 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 06-70463
Parties: Francisco ALVARADO-MANJIVAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
Francisco ALVARADO-MANJIVAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 5, 2010.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Molly L. Debusschere, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Director, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
Francisco Alvarado-Manjivar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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, Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen 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.").
Alvarado-Manjivar's due process contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.