Veronica Betancourt Torres; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VERONICA BETANCOURT TORRES;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-74502
09-70338
Agency Nos. A096-057-922
A096-057-923
A096-057-924
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Veronica Betancourt Torres and
family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Betancourt Torres’ application for cancellation of
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74502 2
removal, and denying her motion to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of
constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d
773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petitions for review.
In No. 08-74502, petitioners’ due process and equal protection contentions
related to their placement in removal proceedings are unavailing. See Vasquez-
Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that placing
aliens in removal, rather than deportation, proceedings does not by itself amount to
a due process violation); see also Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516, 517 (9th Cir.
2001) (“‘Line-drawing’ decisions made by Congress or the President in the context
of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a
legitimate government purpose.”). Petitioners’ contention that the qualifying
relative requirement for cancellation of removal violated Betancourt Torres’
childrens’ equal protection rights is unavailing. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
In No. 09-70338, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’
motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74502 3
the BIA’s prior order affirming the IJ’s decision denying cancellation of removal.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2001) (en banc).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence she submitted 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) (The BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law.”).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --