Miguel Rios Carbajal; Lilia Salgado Carillo 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL RIOS CARBAJAL; LILIA
SALGADO CARILLO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70351
Agency Nos. A075-644-019
A075-644-020
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges
Miguel Rios Carbajal and Lilia Salgado Carillo, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to remand and adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-70351 2
decision denying their cancellation of removal applications. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
remand for failure to demonstrate that the additional evidence submitted with their
motion “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented” at
their hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735,
738 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (evidence capable of being discovered prior to the
hearing cannot serve as the basis for a motion to reopen). Contrary to petitioners’
contention, the BIA provided a reasoned explanation for its decision to deny
petitioners’ motion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --