Case Name: JIAN DONG YANG, a.k.a. Weng Hong Damon Hoi, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-23
Citations: 466 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 09-70996
Parties: JIAN DONG YANG, a.k.a. Weng Hong Damon Hoi, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
JIAN DONG YANG, a.k.a. Weng Hong Damon Hoi, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70996.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 23, 2012.
Liu Yu, Law Offices of Yu & Associates, PLLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
OIL, Angela Marie Olsen, Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, 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: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jian Dong Yang, a native and citizen of China, 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang's motion to reopen because the evidence submitted with Yang's motion to reopen failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum. 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); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.