Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Maria de Jesus Romo Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). The BIA acted within its broad discretion in denying Romo Orozco’s motion to reopen because she failed to present evidence that she was eligible for relief, given that she has no qualifying relative. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (<HOLDING>). Although the BIA construed her motion as both 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied (B) holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing (C) holding that motion to reopen must establish prima facie case demon strating reasonable likelihood that requirements for relief have been satisfied (D) recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought (E) holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief
Output (English): holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing