MARIO ALONSO DELGADO SALAS and CLAUDIA IVONNE MONTES ESPINOZA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO ALONSO DELGADO SALAS
and CLAUDIA IVONNE MONTES
ESPINOZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74045
Agency Nos. A079-529-790
A079-529-791
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alonso Delgado Salas and Claudia Ivonne Montes Espinoza, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to
their United States citizen child.
Petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship consisting of evidence that
Claudia Espinoza has recently been diagnosed with “antepartum depression,” and
that she was approximately eighteen weeks pregnant at the time of filing the
motion. 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 to a qualifying relative for purposes of
cancellation of removal, and therefore was insufficient to warrant reopening. See
Sing v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed on if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --