Case ID: f-appx_279/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bertin DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75069.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2008.
    
    Filed May 22, 2008.
    Bill Waddell, Esq., Law Offices of Bill Waddell, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., Patrick J. Glen, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bertin Diaz-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review from a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review a motion to remand for abuse of discretion, Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Rodriguez’s motion to remand where he failed to present evidence to support his contentions or to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief following the purported change in case law. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (no motion to reopen shall be granted where the alien has failed to demonstrate “circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the hearing” warranting remand). His contention that the BIA failed to articulate its reasons for denying relief is not supported by the record.

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