Case ID: f-appx_273/html/0620-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario Edwin MARINERO-TURCIOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72064
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued March 6, 2008.
    Resubmitted April 7, 2008.
    Filed April 10, 2008.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Seeurity, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann Carroll Varnon, Christopher C. Fuller, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GIBSON  O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marinero-Turcios petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to deny his motion to reopen and reconsider its dismissal of his appeal of the immigration judge’s order of removal. He argues that he is not an alien but a United States citizen.

The BIA is required to ascertain whether new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005). Here, the BIA held that the facts presented were insufficient to carry Marinero-Turcios’s burden of proof that he was a United States citizen. We are satisfied the BIA applied the correct legal standard; there simply is no evidence in the record that he was under eighteen years of age when his father became naturalized. See Immigration and Nationality Act, § 321(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (1988).

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