Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Noime CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70416
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 24, 2016
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, LAW OFFICE OF RICCI AND SPROULS, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, John D. Williams, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Noime Cruz, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252; Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia, 621 F.3d at 912, and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruz’s motion to reopen on the ground that the new evidence of hardship to Cruz’s legal permanent resident mother was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 599 (9th Cir. 2006) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility); Garcia, 621 F.3d at 913 (“The ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard is a very demanding one.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.