Opinion
No. 07-71486.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 19, 2007.
Francisco Reyes, Montebello, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., 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, Susan K. Houser, Esq., 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. Agency No. A79-537-010.
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The court sua sponte denies this petition for review because the questions raised 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner Francisco Reyes's motion to reopen where he did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2003) ("prima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to reopen"); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (applicant for CAT relief must prove "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal"). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All 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.