Case ID: f-appx_116/html/0160-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sivuthur HEAP, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71201.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
    Sivuthur Heap, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sivuthur Heap, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Sharma v. INS, 89 F.8d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA considered the reports Heap submitted regarding changed country conditions in Cambodia and found that this evidence did not warrant reopening because Heap did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 870 (9th Cir.2003). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Heap’s motion to reopen, because this denial was not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000).

Heap’s remaining contentions lack merit.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.