Ivin Amarildo Navarro Guzman; Dilbia Arcely De Navarro Perez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVIN AMARILDO NAVARRO
GUZMAN; DILBIA ARCELY DE
NAVARRO PEREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73669
Agency Nos. A074-824-521
A074-824-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ivin Amarildo Navarro Guzman and Dilbia Arcely De Navarro Perez,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eleven years after
the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA considered the
record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was
insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for relief from deportation. See INS
v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for
failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); Mendez-
Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and
conclusory allegations” insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-73669

-- 2 of 2 --