Ruben Padilla-Aguirre, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-73652 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN PADILLA-AGUIRRE and MARIA LUISA BARAJAS-VASQUEZ, No. 09-73652 Agency Nos. A094-945-147 A094-945-146 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 San Francisco, California ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Ruben Padilla-Aguirre and Maria Luisa Barajas-Vasquez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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). denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. In their motion to reopen, petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship that Barajas-Vasquez s legal permanent resident father had suffered a knee injury requiring an operation. We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish extreme hardship, and was insufficient to warrant reopening of the cancellation application. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000) (the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-73652
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.
