Jose Camacho Aranda 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CAMACHO ARANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72901
Agency No. A096-353-147
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, GOODWIN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Camacho Aranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72901 2
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Camacho Aranda’s motion to
reopen for lack of evidence demonstrating a prima facie case for relief. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding
that a motion to reopen must establish a prima facie case demonstrating “a
reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been
satisfied”); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.
2010) (rejecting as a particular social group “returning Mexicans from the United
States”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Aranda’s contentions regarding the BIA’s
November 30, 2007, order because this petition is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --