CRISPIN CLANOR ENDICIO and MARIA ELSA MALDO RECIO 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CRISPIN CLANOR ENDICIO and
MARIA ELSA MALDO RECIO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71729
08-75193
Agency Nos. A096-341-320
A096-341-321
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Crispin Clanor Endicio and Maria
Elsa Maldo Recio, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for relief from removal, as
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-75193 2
well as the BIA’s order denying their subsequent motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.
2005) and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lolong v.
Gonzalez, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review in No. 08-71729, and deny the petition for
review in No. 08-75193.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). Petitioners’ contention that the agency applied an incorrect hardship
standard is not supported by the record. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived
any challenge to, the agency’s denial of asylum and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-75193 3
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed
to demonstrate their eligibility for withholding of removal. See Gormley v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen, where the BIA considered the new evidence of their United States citizen
son’s mental health condition 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) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed
only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”)
In No. 08-71729: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;
DENIED in part.
In No. 08-75193: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --