
    Carlos Alberto Lopez MOLINA; Leticia Arellano Pliego, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73329.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Carlos Alberto Lopez Molina, Azusa, CA, pro se.
    Leticia Arellano Pliego, Azusa, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith, Aram A. Gavoor, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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.
     