Veronica Betancourt Torres, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74502 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 06 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VERONICA BETANCOURT TORRES; et al., Petitioners, Nos. 08-74502 09-70338 Agency Nos. A096-057-922 A096-057-923 A096-057-924 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Veronica Betancourt Torres and family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying Betancourt Torres application for cancellation of * 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). removal, and denying her motion to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review. In No. 08-74502, petitioners due process and equal protection contentions related to their placement in removal proceedings are unavailing. See VasquezZavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that placing aliens in removal, rather than deportation, proceedings does not by itself amount to a due process violation); see also Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516, 517 (9th Cir. 2001) ( Line-drawing decisions made by Congress or the President in the context of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. ). Petitioners contention that the qualifying relative requirement for cancellation of removal violated Betancourt Torres childrens equal protection rights is unavailing. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In No. 09-70338, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in 2 08-74502 the BIA s prior order affirming the IJ s decision denying cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners 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. ). Petitioners remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-74502
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.
