Case Name: Jesus PEREZ-VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 196 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 05-70493
Parties: Jesus PEREZ-VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 537–537

Head Matter:
Jesus PEREZ-VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70493.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
Alejandro Garcia, Esq., City of Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., J. Scott Watson, Washington, DC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Arlington, VA, 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
Jesus Perez-Velazquez, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Perez-Velazquez submitted 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.").
Perez-Velazquez's contention that the BIA violated its regulations in denying the motion to reopen fails to state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("[traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.").
Because the BIA's conclusion that Perez-Velazquez failed to make a prima facie showing that his child will suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is dispositive, we do not consider contentions relating to physical presence or voluntary departure.
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.