Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0457-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Angel Juan ARAGON-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70708.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 1, 2016.
    Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Ojeda Law, Du-vall, WA, for Petitioner.
    O.I.L., Manuel Palau, D.O.J.-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Juan Aragon-Gomez, 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. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 596-603 (9th Cir.2006). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 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 the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate any likely impact on the hardship determination in Aragon-Gomez’s case. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 600 n. 6 (prima facie eligibility for relief is demonstrated where “the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied” (internal quotations omitted)).

Aragon-Gomez’s contentions that the BIA disregarded, improperly evaluated, and failed to consider the new evidence in the context of the evidence previously presented, are not supported by the record.

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