Case Name: Salvador IBARRA-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 08-74406
Parties: Salvador IBARRA-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 730–730

Head Matter:
Salvador IBARRA-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74406.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Noam Mendelson, Mendelson & Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
Margaret Anne O’Donnell, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, ORP-District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Salvador Ibarra-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Ibarra-Nunez's motion to reopen, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006), we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039 (the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law").
Ibarra-Nunez's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.