Corona Lopez v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 661 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALENTIN CORONA LOPEZ; EMMA No. 08-70496
AYDE OBISPO MALDONADO,
Agency Nos. A095-449-320
Petitioners, A095-449-321
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Valentin Corona Lopez and Emma Ayde Obispo Maldonado, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings to
apply for cancellation of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of
discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the successive motion was filed more than 31 months after the
BIA’s March 4, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining that petitioners failed to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for relief under the CAT, see INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)
(BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the
underlying relief sought); see also Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039 ( BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law). Petitioners’ due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70496