Case Name: Miguel Angel CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-11
Citations: 52 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: Nos. 02-70463, INS A70-92-044
Parties: Miguel Angel CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Nos. 02-70463, INS A70-92-044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 11, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, petitioner’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Angel Carranza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for relief under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 ("NACARA"). Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion, Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition because the motion was properly denied for failing to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, see Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1152 n. 3 (9th Cir.1999) (NA-CARA eligibility for Guatemalan nationals requires entry on or before October 1, 1990); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992) (motions to reopen are properly denied for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.