Case Name: Oliver SCHAPER, aka Oliver Dr. Schaper, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-27
Citations: 591 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 12-74113
Parties: Oliver SCHAPER, aka Oliver Dr. Schaper, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
Oliver SCHAPER, aka Oliver Dr. Schaper, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-74113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
Filed Jan. 27, 2015.
Oliver Schaper, Tustin, CA, pro se.
Andrea Gevas, Oil DOJ — 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, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Oliver Schaper, a native and citizen of Germany, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Schaper's challenges to the IJ's June 4, 2010, order denying his application for asylum, withholding'of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture because Schaper did not file a petition for review of that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Schaper's appeal from an IJ's denial of his motion to reopen because he failed to establish that it was based on evidence that was' not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (agency may deny a motion to reopen for' failure to introduce previously unavailable evidence). We reject Scha-per's contention that the IJ and/or BIA failed to evaluate his evidence.
Finally, we deny Schaper's request for remand based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner's seeking prosecutorial discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, in-eluding after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.