Case Name: Javier Alberto AYALA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 652 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 14-72408
Parties: Javier Alberto AYALA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 652
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
Javier Alberto AYALA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72408
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aric Allan Anderson, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. De partment of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Javier Alberto Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey; 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala's untimely motion to reopen because he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence must establish prima facie eligibility for relief sought).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.