eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2010-09

David Vasquez-Cruz v. Michael Mukasey ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID VASQUEZ-CRUZ,                               No. 08-71307
Petitioner,                        Agency No. A079-544-229
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Vasquez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS,
*
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).
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Cruz’s motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining Vasquez-Cruz did not show prima facie eligibility
for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See INS v. Abudu,
    485 U.S. 94
    ,
104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a
prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); Singh v. INS,
    295 F.3d 1037
    ,
1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it
is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Vasquez-Cruz’s challenge to the BIA’s
October 29, 2007, order denying his application for cancellation of removal,
because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS,
    315 F.3d 1186
    , 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2                                 08-71307