LUIS MANUEL OCHOA-CONTRERAS and MARISOL OCHOA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS MANUEL OCHOA-CONTRERAS
and MARISOL OCHOA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75014
Agency Nos. A096-071-364
A096-071-363
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Manuel Ochoa-Contreras and Marisol Ochoa, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75014 2
v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and de novo claims of due process
violations, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). 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 petitioners’ U.S. citizen son
and daughter’s medical conditions 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”). Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to
consider the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence fails because it is not
supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --