Case Name: Maria Carmela Ventura GUZMAN; Francisco Javier Pinto Gonzalez, 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: 261 F. App'x 954
Docket Number: No. 06-71988
Parties: Maria Carmela Ventura GUZMAN; Francisco Javier Pinto Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
Maria Carmela Ventura GUZMAN; Francisco Javier Pinto Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71988.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Noam Mendelson, Daly City, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Esq., Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, 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
Maria Carmela Ventura Guzman and Francisco Javier Pinto Gonzalez 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 abuse of discretion, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA considered the new evidence regarding petitioners' daughter Teresa 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 if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law."). Petitioners' contention that the BIA decision was improperly conclusory is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.