CARLOS BALDELOMAR-VISCARRA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71858 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS BALDELOMAR-VISCARRA; MARIA CECILIA CISNEROS-CHAVEZ, No. 11-71858 Agency Nos. A098-451-078 A098-451-079 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 15, 2013 ** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Carlos Baldelomar-Viscarra, a native and citizen of Bolivia, and Maria Cecilia Cisneros-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) decision denying their motion to reopen * 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 proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence they 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 denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. ). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners claim that they may qualify for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-71858

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.