
    Maura GUZMAN-PIMENTEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72939.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
    
      Fatma Essam Marouf, Marouf Law Group, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Emily Anne Radford, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, Stephen Elliott, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mura Guzman-Pimentel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her motion to reopen the underlying denial of her application for cancellation of removal, which was based on petitioner’s failure to establish the requisite hardship to her qualifying relatives.

Petitioner introduced new evidence of hardship by submitting evidence that her United States citizen daughter Stephanie was recently diagnosed with asthma, and evidence that Stephanie’s condition would be exacerbated if petitioner were removed to Mexico. Petitioner contends that the BIA erred in denying the motion to reopen when it concluded that Stephanie’s asthma did not constitute a “very serious health issue,” and erred by not considering all of the new evidence.

We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by petitioner, 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) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”). We also conclude that petitioner has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed all of the new evidence submitted with the motion to reopen. See Larita Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000).

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