Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0635-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Akop DZHULAKYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 9, 2010.
    
      Deborah Karapetian, Law Offices of Deborah L. Karapetian, 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, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., DOJ- — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Akop Dzhulakyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, 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, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dzhulakyan’s motion because he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (prima facie eligibility is established “where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied”). Contrary to Dzhulak-yan’s contention, the BIA adequately considered the evidence he submitted with his motion. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430-31 (9th Cir.1995).

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