Rosa Guzman Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions

691 F. App'x 867
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 31, 2017
Docket16-70655
StatusUnpublished

This text of 691 F. App'x 867 (Rosa Guzman Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions) 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
Rosa Guzman Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions, 691 F. App'x 867 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rosa Elena Guzman Sanchez, and Liz-beth Yuliana Alvarado Guzman, 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where they failed to offer evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence proffered was not previously unavailable).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process rights by failing to consider evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where there is no error).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for consideration of humanitarian asylum. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 at 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
691 F. App'x 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-guzman-sanchez-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.