Gina Bautista v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GINA BAUTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73305
Agency No. A096-051-447
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gina Bautista, a native and citizen of the Phillippines, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-73305 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945
(9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bautista’s motion to reopen
because it considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion
in determining Bautista did not show prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. See
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen
for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --