Case ID: f-appx_225/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omar Flores SOTO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72161.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
    
      Omar Flores Soto, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jamie M. Dowd, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Flores Soto, 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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because it considered the new evidence regarding Flores Soto’s possible separation from and inability to support his pregnant wife and expected child, and acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” needed for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (“a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the respondent establishes a prima facie case of eligibility for the underlying relief sought”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.