Beant Kaur; Harnek Singh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BEANT KAUR; HARNEK SINGH,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74735
Agency Nos. A096-160-964
A096-160-965
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.
Beant Kaur and Harnek Singh, wife and husband, and natives and citizens of
India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reissue the BIA’s March 23, 2007, order. We have
FILED
JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74735 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v.
Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny the petition for review.
Although respondent concedes that petitioners’ motion was timely filed, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion on the merits on the
ground that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reissuing its previous order.
See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”); see
also Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 904 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A motion to reissue is
treated as a motion to reopen.”). Because the BIA acted within its discretion, we
need not address petitioners’ remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --