Case Name: Juvencio Salazar RAYA; Maria de Jesus Velazquez Trujillo, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 06-72339
Parties: Juvencio Salazar RAYA; Maria de Jesus Velazquez Trujillo, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 758–758

Head Matter:
Juvencio Salazar RAYA; Maria de Jesus Velazquez Trujillo, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72339.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Nathan M. Zaslow, Esq., Law Office of Nathan M. Zaslow, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Edward J. Duffy, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil, Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juvencio Salazar Raya and Maria de Jesus Velazquez Trujillo petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA considered the new evidence regarding petitioners' son Henry 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.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.