Case Name: Fernando LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-21
Citations: 444 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 10-71228
Parties: Fernando LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
Fernando LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 21, 2011.
Nadeem H. Makada, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEVY, 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
Fernando Lopez-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Vazquez's motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Mendez-Gutierrez, 340 F.3d at 869-70 ("[P]rima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to reopen.").
To the extent Lopez-Vazquez contends that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.