JUAN LUIS CANO-VILLA, AKA Alejandro Luis Garcia-Corral v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN LUIS CANO-VILLA, AKA
Alejandro Luis Garcia-Corral,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73354
Agency No. A205-991-793
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Luis Cano-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73354
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cano-Villa’s motion to
reopen and administratively close proceedings, where he did not establish prima
facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 599 (9th Cir. 2006) (failure to establish a prima facie case for the
underlying relief sought is one of at least three independent grounds on which the
BIA can deny a motion to reopen).
We will not review the IJ’s determination regarding jurisdiction because the
BIA did not rely on that ground. See Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 531 (9th Cir.
2014) (court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision unless the IJ’s opinion is
expressly adopted (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --