Case Name: Fernando C. SOSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-06
Citations: 548 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 12-71546
Parties: Fernando C. SOSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 418–419

Head Matter:
Fernando C. SOSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71546.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 6, 2013.
Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill & Piibe, Immigration Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Fernando C. Sosa, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sosa's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over seven years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (agency may deny a motion to reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); see also Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir.2006) ("vague and conclusory allegations" insufficient to establish prima fa- eie eligibility). We reject Sosa's claim that the BIA erroneously required corroboration.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.