Ubaldo E. Angulo; Raquel Munive Leon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
UBALDO E. ANGULO; RAQUEL
MUNIVE LEON,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72304
Agency Nos. A097-356-871
A097-356-870
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2009**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Ubaldo E. Angulo and Raquel Munive Leon, husband and wife and natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Perez
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72304 2
v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen on the ground that they failed to establish prima facie eligibility for
protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie
eligibility for relief). Petitioners failed to present evidence of changed country
conditions in Mexico that were particular to petitioners and their circumstances.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen where it considered the additional evidence of hardship to petitioners’
United States citizen son and acted within its broad discretion in determining that
the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,
1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if
it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contention
that Angulo’s offense did not render him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --