Case Name: Hector Guillermo MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-01
Citations: 402 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 09-70276
Parties: Hector Guillermo MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
Hector Guillermo MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70276.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Nov. 1, 2010.
Hector Guillermo Mendez-Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, 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
Hector Guillermo Mendez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Rodriguez' motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that Mendez-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. 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); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.