FERNANDO ARREOLA-SOTO and MARIA DEL CARMEN ARREOLA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 ARREOLA-SOTO and
MARIA DEL CARMEN ARREOLA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71616
Agency Nos. A095-443-719
A095-443-720
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Arreola-Soto and Maria Del Carmen Arreola, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71616 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence of Carole’s emotional difficulties
and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was
insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. 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”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on
evidence of Nicole’s hypertrophic tonsil condition because petitioners failed to
demonstrate that this evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2008).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect hardship standard
and failed to consider relevant hardship factors are not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --