Candido Rosas Ocampo; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CANDIDO ROSAS OCAMPO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74381
Agency Nos. A095-296-457
A095-296-458
A095-296-459
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Candido Rosas Ocampo, Victoria Sanchez Hernandez, and their son, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74381 2
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion failed to set forth any new facts or submit any new
evidence contrary to the Immigration Judge’s dispositive determination that they
failed to demonstrate the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of
removal. See id. (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Petitioners’ due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --