Victor Hugo Rogel-Najera v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR HUGO ROGEL-NAJERA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73723
Agency No. A095-766-833
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Victor Hugo Rogel-Najera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
FILED
JUN 23 2016
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 3 --

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rogel-Najera’s motion to
reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal,
where the evidence submitted did not show the required hardship to his new
qualifying relative. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (a
motion to reopen will not be granted unless it establishes a prima facie case for
relief); see also Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (no abuse
of discretion in denying motion to remand to apply for cancellation after the birth
of a U.S. citizen child where petitioner did not tender any evidence showing
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”). We reject Rogel-Najera’s
contention that the BIA’s reasoning was insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA adequately considered evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Rogel-Najera’s remaining
contentions regarding the timeliness of his motion.
14-73723 2

-- 2 of 3 --

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-73723 3

-- 3 of 3 --