Case Name: Hieymi BAUTISTA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 631 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 13-74249
Parties: Hieymi BAUTISTA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Hieymi BAUTISTA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-74249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
Edward Haase, Esquire, Law Office of Edward Haase, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Karen L. Melnik, Trial, OIL, 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, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Hieymi Bautista-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand where Bau-tista-Lopez failed to demonstrate that the new evidence she submitted would likely have changed the outcome of her case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) ("Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a 'heavy burden' of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case." (citation omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Bautista-Lopez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.