FELIPE RIVERA-BELTRAN, AKA Felipe De Jesus Beltran v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

15-71342Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 20, 2016

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE RIVERA-BELTRAN, AKA
Felipe De Jesus Beltran
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71342
Agency No. A200-086-141
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Felipe Rivera-Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion 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 and review de novo questions
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71342
of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in concluding
that the new evidence submitted with Rivera-Beltran’s motion did not warrant
reopening. Contrary to Rivera-Beltran’s contentions, the BIA’s order indicates
that it adequately considered the new evidence and sufficiently explained its
decision. See id. at 990-91 (“What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the
issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing
court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). The BIA did not err in failing to specifically address
Rivera-Beltran’s general statement that he is aware he has made mistakes and has
“accomplished many changes in [his] life” as evidence of rehabilitation. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.