Case Name: Juan Jose SOLTERO SALCEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-27
Citations: 229 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 05-74800
Parties: Juan Jose SOLTERO SALCEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
Juan Jose SOLTERO SALCEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74800.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 27, 2007.
John Ayala, Esq., Cobos & Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-Distriet 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, Dennis M. Wong, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Civil Division, Dublin, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Jose Soltero Salcedo seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Soltero Salcedo's motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence he 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 if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.").
To the extent Soltero Salcedo contends that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
We lack jurisdiction to review Soltero Salcedo's contention that the BIA should have reinstated his voluntary departure period because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.