Jose Marmol Bernabe v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ABRAHAM MARMOL BERNABE, No. 16-74021
Petitioner, Agency No. A029-217-336
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Abraham Marmol Bernabe, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
Marmol Bernabe’s motion for reconsideration and motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311
F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marmol Bernabe’s motion
to reconsider where Marmol Bernabe failed to identify any error of fact or law in
the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must
specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558
(9th Cir. 2004) (discussing standard for a motion to reconsider).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marmol Bernabe’s untimely
motion to reopen where he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226,
1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the
respondent establishes a prima facie case of eligibility for the underlying relief
sought.”).
We reject as without merit Marmol Bernabe’s contention that his case
should be remanded due to the fact the government did not file an opposition to his
motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-74021