JAVIER ANTONIO CIFUENTES SOSA, AKA Javier Tony Cifuentes v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER ANTONIO CIFUENTES SOSA,
AKA Javier Tony Cifuentes,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70844
Agency No. A029-263-073
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Javier Antonio Cifuentes Sosa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and
review de novo questions of law. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cifuentes Sosa’s motion to
reopen, where he did not provide evidence of the reason why his convictions were
vacated. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen
for failure to show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Poblete Mendoza v.
Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A conviction vacated for reasons
‘unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings’ may be used as a
conviction in removal proceedings whereas a conviction vacated because of a
procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings may not.” (internal
citation omitted)).
Contrary to Cifuentes Sosa’s contentions, the BIA did not ignore or
misapply relevant precedent, place an improper burden of proof on him, or
improperly analyze evidence of Cifuentes Sosa’s state court proceedings.
Cifuentes Sosa’s reliance on law concerning the government’s burden to establish
removability is misplaced.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70844 2

-- 2 of 2 --