Case ID: f-appx_259/html/0032-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis ARNEZ-SUCASACA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71755.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
    Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, 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, Carmen D. Colon, U.S. Department of Justice, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Sarah Maloney, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Arnez-Sucasaca, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arnez-Sucasaca’s motion to reopen because the motion was supported only by general articles related to political unrest in Bolivia and provided no information relating specifically to Arnez-Sucasaca. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that evidence introduced in support of motion to reopen was “too general” to demonstrate well-founded fear of future persecution).

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