Marvin Mariveles Manzo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN MARIVELES MANZO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71807
Agency No. A044-810-331
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Marvin Mariveles Manzo, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo
FILED
JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err, violate due process, or abuse its discretion in denying
Manzo’s motion to reopen, where the record does not support Manzo’s contentions
that the BIA relied on speculation, failed to address claims presented in his motion,
failed to consider relevant evidence or positive equities, and failed to provide a
reasoned explanation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“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.” (citation
and quotation marks omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-71807 2

-- 2 of 2 --