Madero v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Madero v. Holder

334 F. App'x 137

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 2009

DocketNo. 06-72124

StatusPublished

This text of 334 F. App'x 137 (Madero 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

Madero v. Holder, 334 F. App'x 137 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Esther Colin Madero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribania 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 Madero’s motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence she submitted 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 a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

Madero’s attorney’s motion to withdraw his previous motion to withdraw as counsel is granted.

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

**

Esther Colin Madero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribania 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 Madero’s motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence she submitted 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 a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

Madero’s attorney’s motion to withdraw his previous motion to withdraw as counsel is granted.

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)

334 F. App'x 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madero-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack