Enrique Ceja-Amezcua, aka Enrique Ceja; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ENRIQUE CEJA-AMEZCUA, aka
Enrique Ceja; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70280
Agency Nos. A097-867-716
A097-867-737
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Enrique Ceja-Amezcua and his wife Maria Del Carmen Vazquez, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70280 2
Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application
for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship
to their United States citizen children.
Petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship consisting of evidence that
their son Enrique was recently diagnosed with depression and a skin condition.
We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by
petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence
did not establish extreme hardship, and was insufficient to warrant reopening. See
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000) (the 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 --