Encarnacion Batres Martinez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ENCARNACION BATRES MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73765
Agency No. A097-586-696
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Encarnacion Batres Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73765 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964
(9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Batres Martinez’s motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence of Batres Martinez’s medical
conditions 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”).
Batres Martinez’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard
is not supported by the record. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --