Javier Cifuentes Sosa v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER ANTONIO CIFUENTES SOSA, No. 14-70844
AKA Javier Tony Cifuentes,
Agency No. A029-263-073
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Javier Antonio Cifuentes Sosa, 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 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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and
review de novo questions of law. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cifuentes Sosa’s motion to
reopen, where he did not provide evidence of the reason why his convictions were
vacated. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen
for failure to show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Poblete Mendoza v.
Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A conviction vacated for reasons
‘unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings’ may be used as a
conviction in removal proceedings whereas a conviction vacated because of a
procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings may not.” (internal
citation omitted)).
Contrary to Cifuentes Sosa’s contentions, the BIA did not ignore or
misapply relevant precedent, place an improper burden of proof on him, or
improperly analyze evidence of Cifuentes Sosa’s state court proceedings.
Cifuentes Sosa’s reliance on law concerning the government’s burden to establish
removability is misplaced.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-70844