Case Name: Angel ZUNIGA-VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-29
Citations: 477 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: No. 10-73500
Parties: Angel ZUNIGA-VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 477
Pages: 466–466

Head Matter:
Angel ZUNIGA-VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73500.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed June 29, 2012.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Dara Smith, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, 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
Angel Zuniga-Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Zuniga-Valencia submitted additional new evidence of hardship to his United States citizen son, Angel Jr., to support his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zuniga-Valencia's motion to reopen on the ground that the new evidence of Angel Jr.'s anxiety and mental health problems were insufficient to establish the requisite hardship, and prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See id. at 912-13.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.