Moises Ortega-Aguilar 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOISES ORTEGA-AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74062
Agency No. A075-766-447
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Moises Ortega-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
DEC 09 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 06-74062 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS,
345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortega’s motion to reopen
because it considered the evidence 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 if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
Ortega’s contention that the BIA failed to explain adequately its reasons for
denying the motion to reopen is belied by the record. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366
F.3d 799, 807, n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (BIA is required to “consider the issues raised,
and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to
perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --