Rocio Ruiz Perales 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROCIO RUIZ PERALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73426
Agency No. A095-305-045
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Rocio Ruiz Perales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73426 2
of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
Contrary to Ruiz Perales’ contention, the BIA applied the correct legal
standard in denying her motion to reopen. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785
(9th Cir. 2003).
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence
submitted with Ruiz Perales’ motion 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --