Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0855-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kamal Mohammed ABDELSHAFI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71842.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 9, 2011.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Elias Z. Shamieh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Paul F. Stone, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District, Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kamal Mohammed Abdelshafi, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Abdelshafi’s motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the additional evidence, including his brother’s letter, did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See id. at 996-97; see also Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1467-69 (9th Cir.1986) (failure to submit evidence indicating that the petitioner was individually targeted or that his situation will be different from the dangers faced by other Salvadorans); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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