Gerardo Gomez Salgado; Esther Franco De Gomez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GERARDO GOMEZ SALGADO;
ESTHER FRANCO DE GOMEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-71665
06-73051
Agency Nos. A077-843-790
A077-843-791
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Gerardo Gomez Salgado and Esther Franco
de Gomez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
FILED
APR 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-73051 2
to reopen removal proceedings, and their subsequent motion to reconsider. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
the denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
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 was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision denying their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Construed as a second motion to reopen, the BIA correctly determined that the
motion was barred by the regulatory limitations on motions to reopen. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --