Gustavo Vasquez Campos v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO VASQUEZ CAMPOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72163
Agency No. A088-110-329
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Vasquez Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
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, and review de novo questions
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72163 2
of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez Campos’ motion
to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture where he previously withdrew these applications
before the immigration judge (“IJ”) and failed to demonstrate that he sought relief
based on circumstances that arose subsequent to his September 2009 hearing
before the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90
(evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from what
could have been presented at the prior hearing).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez Campos’ motion to
reopen to apply for suspension of deportation relief under Lopez-Castellanos v.
Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2006), where he failed to establish prima facie
eligibility for relief. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[P]rima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the
granting of a motion to reopen.”).
We lack jurisdiction over Vasquez Campos’ challenge to the IJ’s
determination that his 1984 conviction was an aggravated felony because this
petition for review is not timely as to the IJ’s September 23, 2009, aggravated

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72163 3
felony determination. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 995 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --