Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8646619
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Molina v. Mukasey
No. 8646619 · Decided December 28, 2007
No. 8646619·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 28, 2007
Citation
No. 8646619
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Carlos Alberto Lopez Molina and Leticia Arellano Pliego petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition for review. The BIA considered the evidence petitioners submitted regarding one of their daughters 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) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-1006 (9th Cir.2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Carlos Alberto Lopez Molina and Leticia Arellano Pliego petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Carlos Alberto Lopez Molina and Leticia Arellano Pliego petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
02We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
03The BIA considered the evidence petitioners submitted regarding one of their daughters and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening.
04INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Carlos Alberto Lopez Molina and Leticia Arellano Pliego petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Molina v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 28, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8646619 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.