Opinion
No. 08-71796.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 13, 2008.
Bruno Delgado Ortiz, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Veronica Vasquez Iniguez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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. A096-353-145, A096-353-146.
Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008).
Petitioners' claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are particular to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Accordingly, the court sua sponte summarily denies in part this petition for review because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
Further, to the extent petitioners seek review of the BIA's denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new hardship evidence, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that denial. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case if a prior adverse discretionary decision was made by the agency). Accordingly, the court sua sponte dismisses in part this petition for review.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.