Antonio Guillen-Estrada v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO GUILLEN-ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70158
Agency No. A029-638-020
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Guillen-Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexican, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision 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
DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70158
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law,
including claims of due process violations. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185
(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guillen-Estrada’s motion to
reopen where he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding
of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA can deny a motion to reopen
for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Bolshakov v.
I.N.S., 133 F.3d 1279, 1280–81 (9th Cir. 1998) (denying a motion to reopen
despite extortionist demands). We reject Guillen-Estrada’s contention that his due
process rights were violated, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27
(9th Cir. 2007), and we reject his contention that the BIA engaged in improper fact
finding.
Guillen-Estrada’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --