
    Eleuterio Reyes VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71733.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2010.
    Haleh Mansouri, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on July 30, 2010, is withdrawn. An amended memorandum disposition is being filed concurrently with this order.

Reyes Vasquez’s petition for panel rehearing is denied.

MEMORANDUM

Eleuterio Reyes Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Reyes Vasquez’s motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the new evidence of his United States citizen daughter’s mental health condition 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.”)

To the extent Reyes Vasquez contends that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir.2006).

We cannot consider the new information set forth in Reyes Vasquez’s brief regarding 1) the fact that his children now live with him rather than with their mothers, 2) his disability, or 3) Dayana’s diagnosis, because that information was not before the BIA when it denied Reyes Vasquez’s motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Our decision, however, does not preclude Reyes Vasquez from presenting that new information to the BIA, and requesting it to reopen proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

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