Fernando Camargo-Zavala; Margarita Camargo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FERNANDO CAMARGO-ZAVALA;
MARGARITA CAMARGO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74561
Agency Nos. A096-072-106
A096-072-107
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Camargo-Zavala and Margarita Camargo, 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 jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74561 2
reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that, even
assuming counsel failed to submit documentation, the evidence presented with the
motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --