Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Pedro Alberto Cruz Valdez, Simi Valley, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Leslie McKay, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pedro Alberto Cruz Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
Page 835.
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Cruz Valdez's motion to reopen because his bare assertion that a potential change in immigration law would allow him to stay in the United States, absent any evidence that such a law is currently in place and, if it were, that he would meet its requirements, failed to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785.
We lack jurisdiction over Cruz Valdez's remaining contentions concerning the agency's underlying decision because he did not file a petition for review from that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.