Case Name: Victor ARMENTA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 601 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 11-71434
Parties: Victor ARMENTA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
Victor ARMENTA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71434.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 28, 2015.
Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Victor Armenta-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir.2012), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Armenta-Rodriguez's motion to reopen because Armenta-Rodriguez did not demonstrate that the evidence he submitted with the motion was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at his immigration hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (a motion to reopen shall not be granted unless the "evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing[.]"); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (evidence capable of being discovered at time of hearing cannot serve as basis for motion to reopen).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Armenta-Rodriguez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.