Case Name: Shayne VISSER, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 633 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 14-70406
Parties: Shayne VISSER, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. ■
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 387–387

Head Matter:
Shayne VISSER, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70406.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
Diana M. Bailey, Law Office of Diana M. Baiíey, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial, Andrea Ge-vas, Oil, 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: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Shayne Visser, a native and citizen of South Africa, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Visser's motion to reopen because he failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought. See id. (court defers to the BIA's exercise of discretion unless it acted 'arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law').
We lack jurisdiction to consider Visser's contentions challenging the BIA's June 17, 2013, order denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because Visser did not petition for review of that order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.