Eber Isaac Porras v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EBER ISAAC PORRAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71379
Agency No. A070-967-311
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Eber Isaac Porras, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
DEC 6 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Porras’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed thirteen years after IJ’s final order of
deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Porras failed to establish prima facie
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention
Against Torture, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (agency may deny a motion to
reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought);
Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and
conclusory allegations” insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility). Because
Porras’s motion did not allege facts that would establish eligibility for relief, he
was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to exercise
its sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez
v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2

-- 2 of 2 --