Case Name: Bruno Delgado ORTIZ; Veronica Vasquez Iniguez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-13
Citations: 301 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 08-71796
Parties: Bruno Delgado ORTIZ; Veronica Vasquez Iniguez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 612–614

Head Matter:
Bruno Delgado ORTIZ; Veronica Vasquez Iniguez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71796.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2008.
Filed Nov. 13, 2008.
Bruno Delgado Ortiz, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Veronica Vasquez Iniguez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
Petitioners' claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are particular to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Accordingly, the court sua sponte summarily denies in part this petition for review because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
Further, to the extent petitioners seek review of the BIA's denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new hardship evidence, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that denial. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigra tion Appeals' denial of motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case if a prior adverse discretionary decision was made by the agency). Accordingly, the court sua sponte dismisses in part this petition for review.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
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.