Juan De Jesus Vasquez-Lopez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN DE JESUS VASQUEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73855
Agency No. A094-947-213
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Juan de Jesus Vasquez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
FILED
NOV 25 2015
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 denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Lopez’s motion to
reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief pursuant to section
203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997
(“NACARA”), where he did not address how he would demonstrate good moral
character or his eligibility for relief as a matter of discretion. See NACARA, Pub.
L. 105-100 § 203, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997); see also Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzales,
410 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A motion to reopen to apply for NACARA
relief will not be granted unless an alien can demonstrate prima facie eligibility for
relief under NACARA.”).
Because the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Lopez did not demonstrate
prima facie eligibility for relief is dispositive, we do not reach his remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73855 2

-- 2 of 2 --