
    Jorge L. AVALOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 8, 2011.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, Yedidya Cohen, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge L. Avalos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

To the extent that we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006), we conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avalos’ motion to reopen based on new evidence of hardship because the BIA considered the evidence and acted within its broad discretion in determining 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.”).

The record further reflects that the BIA adequately addressed the evidence presented by Avalos’ motion to reopen. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603. Avalos’ argument that the BIA failed to consider the new evidence in conjunction with prior evidence of hardship is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     