Case ID: f-appx_648/html/0744-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Jacobo ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016. 
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Fernando Luis Cosio, Law Office of Fernando L. Cosio, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Zoe Jaye Heller, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Jacobo Escobar, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 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. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escobar’s untimely motion to reopen because the evidence supporting his motion, including the declarations of Esco-bar’s father and daughter, did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at 965-66 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen to seek CAT relief where petitioner did not demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to Guatemala).

We reject Escobar’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2009) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision),

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