Opinion
No. 07-73763.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed August 3, 2009.
John Ayala, Esquire, Alma Cobos-Ayala, Cobos Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A095-309-012, A095-300-295.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ismael Barba Almaraz and Ines Corona Estrada, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denial of their motion to reopen. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.
In their motion to reopen, petitioners offered new evidence of hardship demonstrating that their United States citizen I, son had been diagnosed with a speech and language impediment resulting in acaidemic difficulties. We conclude that the BIA considered the new evidence, and actd ed 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. 2002) (the BIA's denial of motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law").
Petitioners' contention that the BIA erred by failing to extend their voluntary departure period is unavailing.