Rene Torres Flores; Elsa Guillermina Torres; 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE TORRES FLORES; ELSA
GUILLERMINA TORRES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73506
Agency Nos. A095-309-347
A095-309-348
A095-309-349
A095-309-350
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rene Torres Flores, his wife, Elsa Guillermina Torres, and their two minor
children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen
FILED
JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 07-73506 2
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 Torres Flores’ motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence he 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 DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --