
    Oracio SANCHEZ-REYNA, a.k.a. Horacio Sanchez-Reyna, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-71230, 08-74241.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Robert L. Lewis, Esquire, Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, Nehal Kamani, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions, Oracio Sanchez-Reyna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). In No. 08-71230, we deny the petition for review. In No. 08-74241, we deny in part and remand in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Sanchez-Reyna’s motions to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was either not material, not new, or 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 if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

In its September 4, 2008, order, the BIA abused its discretion by concluding that Sanchez-Reyna overstayed his voluntary departure period. As both parties agree, Sanchez-Reyna obtained a temporary stay of voluntary departure when he timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s prior February 21, 2008, order, and moved to stay his voluntary departure prior to its expiration. We therefore remand No. 08-74241 to the BIA for the limited purpose of reinstating Sanchez-Reyna’s remaining voluntary departure period.

In No. 08-71230: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

In No. 08-74241: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; REMANDED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     