N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ARLOS ALFONSO SAJUAN OC HOA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73621 Age n c y No. A087-102-846 M EM O R ANDUM *

C ARLOS ALFONSO SAJUAN OC HOA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70543 Age n c y No. A087-102-846

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 4, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED FEB 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : WALLAC E a nd O’ SC ANNLAIN, C irc uit Judge s a nd HUFF, *** Distric t Judge . C arlos Alfonso Sa

jua n Oc hoa , a

native an d

c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B oa

rd) de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n his re m ova l proc e e dings. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1251(b), we re vie w for an a

buse of disc re tion, se eMinasy an v . Muk a se y , 553 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th C ir. 2009), a

n d we de ny

the pe t ition. Oc hoa wa s c onvic te d in sta

te c ourt on c ounts of the ft a n d burgla ry . On this a ppe a l, Oc hoa

argue s tha

t som e of his c onvic tions we re re c e ntly va c ate d, a

nd thus he no longe r ha s c onvic tions of c rim e s involving m ora l turpitude , re n de ring him e ligiblefor c anc e l lation of re m ova l. In support of the m otion to re o pe n, Oc hoa subm itte d a

c h arging doc um e nt de m onstra ting tha t his sta te c ourt c onvic t ion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 484 wa s va c ate d a nd a m e n de d to a

c ha rge unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 415, disturbing the pe a c e . Oc hoa

c onte nds the

*** The Honora

ble M arily

n L. Huff, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 1 Oc hoa ha s a lso file d a

pe tition for re vie w of the B o ard’ s orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of the im

m igration judge ’ s de n ia l of his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd C onve ntion Against Torturere lie f. B ut Oc hoa ha s wa ive d a ny c ha lle n ge s to suc h orde r by fa i ling to pre se nt a

ny argum e nts re ga

rding it in his ope

ning brie f. Se e Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th C i r. 2011). 1 3 - 7 0 5 4 3 2pre v ious c onvic tion wa s va c at e d due to a proc e dura l e rror, a

nd thus it may

no longe r be c onside re d in im m igration proc e e dings. Se eN ath v . Gonzale

s , 467 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th C ir. 2006). The gove rnm e nt ha s the burde n to e sta b lish tha t a c onvic tion re m a ins va lid for im m igration purpose s. Id. Eve n if we a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t the c onvic tion doe s n ot

re m a i n va lid, theB oa

rd prope rly

c onc lude d

tha t Oc hoa did not suffic i e ntly

de m o nstra

te prim a fa c ie e ligibility

for re lie f from

re m ova l to wa

rrant re ope n ing proc e e dings. Lope z-Vasque z v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th C ir. 2013). The pe titione r m

ust support a

m otion to re o pe n with ne w e vide n c e and e sta blish a prim a

fa c i e c a se for the unde rly i ng re lie f sought. Ordone z v . I.N .S. , 345 F.3d 777, 784–5 (9th C ir. 2003) . A prim a fa c ie c a se is e sta blishe d whe n

the e vide nc e re ve a ls a

re a sona ble like lihood tha

t the sta tutory re q uire m e nts for re lie f have be e n satisfie d . Id . Oc hoa

did not pre se nt a

ny e vide nc e in his a

p plic ation for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l t o show a re a sona ble like lihood tha

t his re m ova l would re sult in e xc e ptiona l a

nd e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship to his spouse , pa

re nt, or c hild. 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(D); se e Garc ia v . Holde r , 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C ir. 2010).

1 3 - 7 0 5 4 3 3Oc hoa ’ s brie f a rgue s tha t a showing of ha

rdship is “ a

m atte r for the im m igration judgeonc e proc e e d ings a re re o pe ne d .” B ut a

m otion to re ope n is “ the prope r wa

y to introduc e pre viously

una va ila ble e vide nc e ,” Ordone

z , 345 F.3d a

t 784, a nd the B oa

rd a ddre sse d Oc hoa ’ s fa ilure to m ake a prim a fa c ie showing of e xtre m e ha

rdship in its de

n i a l orde r. As no e vide nc e of ha rdship wa s pre v iously introduc e d a

nd the re c ord re m a ins de fic ie nt, Oc hoa ha s not e sta

b lishe d prim a fa c ie e ligibility for c an c e lla

tion of re m ova l. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 0 5 4 3 4