DANIEL BRAVO IZARRARAS and CELIA TORRES MORENO v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

11-71570Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23 de out. de 2013

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL BRAVO IZARRARAS and
CELIA TORRES MORENO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71570
Agency Nos. A075-734-587
A075-734-588
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Bravo Izarraras and Celia Torres Moreno, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
FILED
OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen where petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See id. at
986 (agency may deny a motion to reopen based on failure to establish a prima
facie case for the relief sought); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that generalized evidence of violence and crime was
insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding, or relief under CAT).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to not exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,
633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-71570 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.