Case Name: Antonio MUNOZ-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jose Luis Hernandez-Torres, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-13
Citations: 376 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 07-73788
Parties: Antonio MUNOZ-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jose Luis Hernandez-Torres, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 665–665

Head Matter:
Antonio MUNOZ-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jose Luis Hernandez-Torres, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73788.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 13, 2010.
Richard Flores Lemus, Esquire, Law Offices of Richard F. Lemus, Fullerton, CA, for Petitioner.
Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Antonio Munoz-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Munoz-Lopez's motion to reopen because he did not establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (holding that BIA may deny an alien's motion to reopen if alien is not prima facie eligible for relief sought).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.