Case Name: Alfonso Zarate SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-19
Citations: 312 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 08-71306
Parties: Alfonso Zarate SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
Alfonso Zarate SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Feb. 19, 2009.
Alfonso Zarate Santiago, Mission Viejo, CA, pro se.
Stuart Nickum, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, 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: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. 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).
Petitioner's claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner and his circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). Because petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dezzyizzg the motion.
Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition of the petition for review is granted 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).
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.