Tomas Reyes-Torres; Melania Ortega-Mondragan; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

06-73870Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 9, 2009

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMAS REYES-TORRES; MELANIA
ORTEGA-MONDRAGAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73870
Agency Nos. A096-066-887
A096-066-854
A096-066-855
A096-066-856
A096-066-888
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Reyes-Torres, his wife, Melania Ortega-Mondragan, and their
children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the
FILED
DEC 09 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 06-73870 2
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782
(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Reyes’ motion to reopen
because the BIA considered the evidence 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”).
In his opening brief, Reyes does not challenge the BIA’s determination that
he untimely filed his motion to reconsider the merits of the underlying case. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.