Federico Cibrian Contreras; Maria De Jesus Sanchez Quintero v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERICO CIBRIAN CONTRERAS;
MARIA DE JESUS SANCHEZ
QUINTERO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72163
Agency Nos. A095-191-836
A095-191-837
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Federico Cibrian Contreras and Maria de Jesus Sanchez Quintero, husband
and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72163 2
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of
removal and denying their motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). We do not reach petitioners’ contention regarding physical presence
because the hardship determination is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to remand
because the BIA considered the evidence petitioners 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --