22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43d,MEMORANDUM Enrique Ceja-Amezcua and his wife Maria Del Carmen Vazquez, 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 their United States citizen children. Petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship consisting of evidence that their son Enrique was recently diagnosed with depression and a skin condition. We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish extreme hardship, and was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate Cor publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46a,

MEMORANDUM

Enrique Ceja-Amezcua and his wife Maria Del Carmen Vazquez, 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 their United States citizen children.

Petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship consisting of evidence that their son Enrique was recently diagnosed with depression and a skin condition. We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish extreme hardship, and was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate Cor publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.