United States v. 2020-09-11 | 16-71254 | JOSE GAVINO RIVERA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GAVINO RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-71254

Agency No. A200-127-414

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Gavino Rivera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Martinez-
Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition

*
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

SEP 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-71254
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gavino Rivera’s motion to
reopen where he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Ramirez-
Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (the BIA may deny a motion
to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Shin
v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioners who seek to reopen
proceedings “bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened,
the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (citation omitted)).
As stated in the court’s July 19, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.