Espinoza v. Holder
Espinoza v. Holder
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Eduardo Medina Espinoza and Carmen Medina (“the Medinas”) petition for review
(1) The Medinas’ petition for review of the denial of cancellation of removal
(2) The Medinas also petition for review of the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). However, no new and material evidence was presented with that motion. Therefore, we deny the petition because the BIA did not err when it denied reopening. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Petition DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.