Rosa Guzman Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA ELENA GUZMAN SANCHEZ and No. 16-70655
LIZBETH YULIANA ALVARADO
GUZMAN, Agency Nos. A202-098-281
A202-098-282
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Rosa Elena Guzman Sanchez, and Lizbeth 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 16-70655