Jose Luis Correa Rodriguez; Fidela Maria 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS CORREA RODRIGUEZ;
FIDELA MARIA MARTINEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72652
Agency Nos. A097-361-223
A097-361-224
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Correa Rodriguez and Fidela Maria Martinez, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-72652 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295
F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), and review de novo claims of constitutional
violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.
2001). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence
presented with the motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See
Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039 (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only
if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”). It follows that petitioners’ due
process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --