Case Name: Luz Maria MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 811
Docket Number: No. 07-71873
Parties: Luz Maria MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 811–812

Head Matter:
Luz Maria MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71873.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
John Wolfgang Gehart, Russell Jaure-gui, Esquire, Carlos Vellanoweth, Esquire, Elena Yampolsky, Esquire, Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Départment of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luz Maria Martinez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 821 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA provided adequate consideration of the supporting evidence Martinez-Martinez submitted with her motion, including the psychological evaluation of her U.S. citizen son, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA is required to "consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted") (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.