Luis Ochoa-Contreras, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-75014 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS MANUEL OCHOA-CONTRERAS and MARISOL OCHOA, No. 08-75014 Agency Nos. A096-071-364 A096-071-363 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Luis Manuel Ochoa-Contreras and Marisol Ochoa, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida * 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). v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and de novo claims of due process violations, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence of petitioners U.S. citizen son and daughter s medical conditions and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law ). Petitioners contention that the BIA failed to consider the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence fails because it is not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-75014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.