Ricardo Becerra-Serrano; Maria Magdalena Becerra 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).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO BECERRA-SERRANO;
MARIA MAGDALENA BECERRA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-72913
06-74248
Agency Nos. A070-815-797
A075-726-346
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Ricardo Becerra-Serrano and
Maria Magdalena Becerra, spouses and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
FILED
JAN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NHY/Research 06-74248 2
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
cancellation of removal, and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
including due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107
(9th Cir. 2003), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). In No. 06-72913, we dismiss
the petition for review. In No. 06-74248, we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners did not file their first petition to this court within 30 days of the
BIA’s decision. We therefore lack jurisdiction, and dismiss their petition. See
Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by 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.”).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
reopen because they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of

-- 2 of 3 --

NHY/Research 06-74248 3
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592,
597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
IN 06-72913, PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
IN 06-74248, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --