Edwin Lainez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN LAINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70160
Agency No. A094-827-961
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Lainez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey,
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70160
538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lainez’s untimely motion to
reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Lainez failed to demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (the BIA can
deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case); see also INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute makes motive
critical, [an applicant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial”);
see Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --