Llamas Reyes v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 665 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2010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
JUAN ANTONIO LLAMAS REYES, No. 08-70365
Petitioner, Agency No. A037-516-672
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.
Juan Antonio Llamas Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to remand.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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 a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th
Cir. 2008), 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 Llamas Reyes’ motion to
remand, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant
remand. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial
of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law.”).
We reject Llamas Reyes’ due process claim because the BIA’s decision
explained its analysis of the evidence Llamas Reyes submitted with the motion to
remand, and reflects that the BIA properly considered the issues raised by Llamas
Reyes’ motion. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“[T]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70365