From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Izarraras v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 23, 2013
543 F. App'x 687 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

Submitted October 15, 2013

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A075-734-587, A075-734-588.

DANIEL BRAVO IZARRARAS, Petitioner, Pro se, Palmdale, CA.

CELIA TORRES MORENO, Petitioner, Pro se, Palmdale, CA.

For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: OIL, Dana Michelle Camilleri, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA.


Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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

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 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.


Summaries of

Izarraras v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 23, 2013
543 F. App'x 687 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Izarraras v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL BRAVO IZARRARAS and CELIA TORRES MORENO, Petitioners, v. ERIC H…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 23, 2013

Citations

543 F. App'x 687 (9th Cir. 2013)