Martinez Rios v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENOVEVA MARTINEZ RIOS; et al., No. 07-71648
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-196-227
A095-196-228
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
GENOVEVA MARTINEZ RIOS; et al., No. 08-73648
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-196-227
A095-196-228
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
jlf/Inventory
**
Submitted December 15, 2009
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Genoveva Martinez Rios and her son Augustin Armenta Martinez, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application
for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship
to a qualifying relative.
Petitioners introduced new evidence that the female petitioner’s health has
declined since the removal hearing to support their claim that the petitioners’
qualifying relative would experience extreme hardship if they were removed. We
conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioners,
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.
2000) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
We do not consider petitioners’ contentions regarding the immigration
judge’s failure to make findings regarding petitioners’ good moral character, lack
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory 2 07-71648
of previous convictions, or their continuous presence in the United States because
these contentions are not properly before us in our review of the BIA’s denial of
the motion to reopen.
Petitioners do not raise any arguments concerning the BIA’s denial of their
second motion to reopen as time and numerically barred, and therefore petitioners
have waived any challenge to that decision. See Martinez-Rios v. Holder, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in a brief are deemed
abandoned).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
jlf/Inventory 3 07-71648