Jaime Rico-Lopez; Lilia Rico 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).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME RICO-LOPEZ; LILIA RICO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71276
Agency Nos. A075-731-620
A075-731-621
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges
Jaime Rico-Lopez and Lilia Rico, husband and wife and natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 07-71276 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen
because the BIA considered the evidence petitioners submitted 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) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --