Case Name: Moustafa El Sayed HARIDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 372 F. App'x 703
Docket Number: No. 07-71013
Parties: Moustafa El Sayed HARIDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 703–704

Head Matter:
Moustafa El Sayed HARIDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 24, 2010.
Katherine Lesley Curtis, Adila Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Walter Manning Evans, Esquire, Trial, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Moustafa El Sayed Haridy, a native of Saudi Arabia and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") 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, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Haridy's motion to reopen because Haridy did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.