Case Name: Ismael Chaires PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 06-70007
Parties: Ismael Chaires PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Ismael Chaires PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70007.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Ismael Chaires Perez, Wildomar, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Susan K. Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ismael Chaires Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision adopting and affirming the immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to permit him to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
Chaires Perez contends that the Board and IJ erred in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. They did not deny the motion on this basis but instead denied it on the merits.
Chaires Perez also contends that he established a prima facie case of eligibility for CAT relief. This contention lacks merit because his general evidence regarding torture in Mexico does not show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed there. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.