Rosa Elena Lopez De Dorantes; Jose Isabel Dorantes-Espadas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROSA ELENA LOPEZ DE DORANTES;
JOSE ISABEL DORANTES-ESPADAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71246
Agency Nos. A073-837-677
A073-837-676
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Elena Lopez De Dorantes and Jose Isabel Dorantes-Espadas, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order,
and denying their motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71246 2
We review de novo constitutional claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to remand, De Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.
2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence
newly presented on appeal was insufficient to warrant a remand. See Singh v. INS,
295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”). Petitioners’ due process
claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --