From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guzman v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 16, 2008
278 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-74713.

Submitted May 12, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 16, 2008.

Martin Vega Guzman, pro se.

Rosa Martinez Gonzalez, pro se.

Jesus Vega Martinez, pro se.

W. Manning Evans, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A96-351-683 to A96-351-685.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Petitioners seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying their motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 2001). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. Petitioners' general evidence of torture does not demonstrate a prima facie case that they, in particular, would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Kamalthas, 251 F.3d at 1284. Respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Guzman v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 16, 2008
278 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Guzman v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Martin Vega GUZMAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 16, 2008

Citations

278 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2008)