Almaraz v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Almaraz v. Holder

329 F. App'x 789

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2009

DocketNo. 07-73763

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 789 (Almaraz v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Almaraz v. Holder, 329 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

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 son had been diagnosed with a speech and language impediment resulting in academic difficulties. We conclude that the BIA considered the new evidence, 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.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.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

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 son had been diagnosed with a speech and language impediment resulting in academic difficulties. We conclude that the BIA considered the new evidence, 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.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.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F. App'x 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almaraz-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack