Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lucano CORTEZ-MARIACA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71415.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 25, 2009.
    Victor D. Nieblas Pradis, City of Industry, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, Christopher C. Fuller, Attorney: Janice K. Redfern, Esq. Attorney Phone: 202-616-4475 Attorney Fax: 202-616-9777 Firm Name: DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Firm Address: P.O. BOX 878, Benjamin Franklin Station 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. (ZIP: 20004) Washington, DC
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lucano Cortez-Mariaca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cortez-Mariaca’s motion to reopen. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir.2003) (“[Pjrima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to reopen”). We reject petitioner’s contention regarding Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA 2002) (en banc).

In his motion to reopen, Cortez-Mariaca failed to raise the contention that his visa petition remained pending as a result of prior counsel’s actions. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Cortez-Mariaca’s remaining contentions.

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