
    Pablo Silvar FIGUEROA; Angelica Bonilla Campos, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007 .
    Filed June 11, 2007.
    Pablo Silvar Figueroa, Los Angeles, 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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Silvar Figueroa and his wife, Angelica Bonilla Campos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings to present new evidence of hardship. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence they submitted 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 if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”); cf. Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (a motion to remand filed after the final order of removal is properly treated as a motion to reopen).

It follows that the BIA did not violate due process by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, a petitioner must show error).

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