Case Name: Emiliano VELASCO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-15
Citations: 448 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 10-70698
Parties: Emiliano VELASCO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 448
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
Emiliano VELASCO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70698.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Gerald Alexander, Trial, 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: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Emiliano Velasco Garcia, 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, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasco Garcia's motion to reopen based on the new hardship evidence of his temporary guardianship of his nieces where he did not allege how his qualifying relatives would be affected. See id. (a motion to reopen will not be granted unless it establishes a prima facie case for relief).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Velasco Garcia's remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.