Case Name: Oscar Armando FLORES-DE PAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 12-70316
Parties: Oscar Armando FLORES-DE PAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
Oscar Armando FLORES-DE PAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
Oscar Armando Flores-De Paz, Los An-geles, CA, pro se.
OIL, Lori Warlick, 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: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, 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
Oscar Armando Flores-De Paz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") January 25, 2012, order 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores-De Paz's untimely and number-barred motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986; Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir.2006) ("vague and conclusory allegations" are insufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution). The record does not support Flores De-Paz's contentions that the BIA misstated facts, used faulty legal reasoning, or applied an incorrect legal standard. If Flores De-Paz is seeking review of the BIA's February 23, 2012, order, Flores De-Paz did not petition for review of that order.
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.