MBA

MEMORANDUM **

The facts and procedural history are known to the parties and repeated here only as necessary. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Arrozal v. INS, 159 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir.1998); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). The BIA’s determination of purely legal questions is reviewed de novo. See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996). Where the Board reviews the IJ’s decision and makes its own independent conclusion, we review the Board’s decision. See Alaelua v. INS, 45 F.3d 1379, 1381-82 (9th Cir.1995); see also Fajardo v. INS, 300 F.3d 1018 , 1019 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002); Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391 , 393 (9th Cir.1997).

We have held that the BIA “may deny a motion to reopen if (a) in its discretion, it would eventually deny the ultimate relief even if it granted the motion to reopen, (b) it adequately articulates the bases for its exercise of its discretion, and (c) the exercise of its discretion is based on ‘legitimate concerns.’ ” Hernandez-Ortiz…