Case Name: Maria Luisa ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 168 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 04-75798
Parties: Maria Luisa ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
Maria Luisa ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
Maria Luisa Arriola, Van Nuys, 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, OIL, Marion E. Guyton, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In our May 20, 2004 decision, the court denied Maria Luisa Arriola's petition for review of the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, but remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") for the limited purpose of addressing Arriola's motion to remand to allow her to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Arriola now petitions pro se for review of the BIA's order denying her motion to remand. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Arriola's motion to remand to apply for CAT relief because she failed to establish a prima facie case for withholding of removal under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2)(ii).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.