Jose Castaneyra Villalba v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL CASTANEYRA No. 16-70424
VILLALBA,
Agency No. A205-536-237
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Castaneyra Villalba, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
*
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).
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, where
Castaneyra Villalba’s evidence, including evidence of being harmed on account of
being a Jehovah’s Witness, was not previously unavailable, and Castaneyra
Villalba did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(C)(7); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (new
evidence in support of a motion to reopen must have been unavailable at the time
of the hearing and must establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
We reject Castaneyra Villalba’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion
in denying the motion to reopen despite the absence of an opposition. See Limsico
v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. 1991) (BIA has authority to deny unopposed
motions to reopen).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-70424