RUBEN PADILLA-AGUIRRE and MARIA LUISA BARAJAS-VASQUEZ 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RUBEN PADILLA-AGUIRRE and
MARIA LUISA BARAJAS-VASQUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73652
Agency Nos. A094-945-147
A094-945-146
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Padilla-Aguirre and Maria Luisa Barajas-Vasquez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
FILED
DEC 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73652 2
denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their applications for
cancellation of removal.
In their motion to reopen, petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship
that Barajas-Vasquez’s legal permanent resident father had suffered a knee injury
requiring an operation. We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new
evidence offered by petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence did not establish extreme hardship, and was
insufficient to warrant reopening of the cancellation application. See Singh v. INS,
295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000) (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 --