Luis Orlando Zel Chan, a.k.a. Luis Orlando El Chan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS ORLANDO ZEL CHAN, a.k.a. Luis
Orlando El Chan; MARTHA ALICIA
OROZCO AGUILAR, a.k.a. Martha
Alicio Roscoe-Aguilar,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73939
Agency Nos. A095-316-003
A095-316-004
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Luis Orlando Zel Chan and Martha Alicia Orozco Aguilar, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73939 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen and de novo questions of law, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence they 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.”).
To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA failed to consider some or all
of the evidence they submitted with the motion to reopen, they have not overcome
the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --