Case ID: f-appx_177/html/0608-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Esther Hernandez EZIQUIO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74861.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2006.
    
    Decided April 17, 2006.
    Esther Hernandez Eziquio, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    
      CAC-District 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, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., Stephen J. Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Esther Hernandez Eziquio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, 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 when it denied the motion to reopen because Hernandez Eziquio failed to present evidence to support her contention that her stepson and husband would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she were removed to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material”). Absent such evidence, the BIA properly concluded that Hernandez Eziquio failed to show prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (holding that prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by showing there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.