
    Luis Manuel OCHOA-CONTRERAS and Marisol Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Raul Gomez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Of-fíce 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, CALLAHAN, 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

Luis Manuel Ochoa-Contreras and Marisol Ochoa, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and de novo claims of due process violations, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence of petitioners’ U.S. citizen son and daughter’s medical conditions and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish pri-ma facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. 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”). Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence fails because it 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     