Maria Barbara Galindo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA BARBARA GALINDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71737
Agency No. A075-739-226
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.
Maria Barbara Galindo, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Movsisian v.
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71737 2
Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and review de novo due process
claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Galindo’s motion to reopen
because the BIA properly considered the new evidence submitted by Galindo, and
acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient
to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000)
(BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law”).
Galindo’s claim that the BIA violated due process by failing to address the
overall hardship to all her qualifying relatives is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --