Carlos Baldelomar-Viscarra; Maria Cecilia Cisneros-Chavez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARLOS BALDELOMAR-VISCARRA;
MARIA CECILIA CISNEROS-CHAVEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71858
Agency Nos. A098-451-078
A098-451-079
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Baldelomar-Viscarra, a native and citizen of Bolivia, and Maria
Cecilia Cisneros-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen
FILED
JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71858 2
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Garcia v. Holder, 621
F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part 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 denial of a
motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ claim that they may qualify for
prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --