Moustafa El Sayed Haridy 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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOUSTAFA EL SAYED HARIDY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71013
Agency No. A095-618-096
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Moustafa El Sayed Haridy, a native of Saudi Arabia and citizen of Egypt,
petitions 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.
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 07-71013 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Haridy’s motion to reopen
because Haridy did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of
removal. 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 --