De Leon Mazariegos v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 584 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 07 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    OSMI ELMER DE LEON                               No. 07-73752
    MAZARIEGOS,
    Agency No. A098-161-912
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Osmi Elmer De Leon Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
    petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
    his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Perez
    v. Mukasey, 
    516 F.3d 770
    , 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
    The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was
    insufficient to establish changed country conditions in Guatemala. See Malty v.
    Ashcroft, 
    381 F.3d 942
    , 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether
    circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
    have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
    persecution.”).
    Furthermore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
    reopen where the new evidence De Leon Mazariegos presented with his motion
    did not support prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez
    v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 600 (9th Cir. 2006).
    De Leon Mazariegos’ contention that the BIA failed to consider all the
    evidence submitted with the motion fails, because he has not overcome the
    presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See 
    id. at 603
    .
    De Leon Mazariegos’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    07-73752
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-73752

Citation Numbers: 382 F. App'x 584

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/7/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024