Case Name: Arturo Orozco ZAMARRIPA; Maria De La Luz Gonzalez Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 07-72138
Parties: Arturo Orozco ZAMARRIPA; Maria De La Luz Gonzalez Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
Arturo Orozco ZAMARRIPA; Maria De La Luz Gonzalez Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72138.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci And Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Stephen Elliott, Esquire, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole N. Murley, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arturo Orozco Zamarripa and Maria De La Luz Gonzalez Gutierrez, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners' motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence they 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.").
Petitioners' contention that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence they submitted with the motion to reopen 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.