Case Name: LIXIA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 13-72449
Parties: LIXIA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
LIXIA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72449.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
Theodore N. Cox, Esquire, Law Offices of Theodore Cox, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
Oil, Nancy Ellen Friedman, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Lixia Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'("BIA") order denying her 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, Najma-badi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th - Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen's motion to reopen, where the BIA 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 id. (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen based on failure to show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). Contrary to Chen's contention, the BIA did not hold her to an impermissibly high legal standard. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (petitioner bears the burden of proving the evidence would likely change the result in the case).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chen's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.