Case Name: William Ernesto HURTADO-MENA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-15
Citations: 114 F. App'x 950
Docket Number: No. 03-72703; Agency No. A77-662-862
Parties: William Ernesto HURTADO-MENA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 950–950

Head Matter:
William Ernesto HURTADO-MENA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72703.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Areg Kazaryan, Law Office of Areg Kazaryan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Susan Houser, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William Ernesto Hurtado-Mena, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA considered the articles and reports regarding changed country conditions in Nicaragua that Hurtado-Mena submitted with his motion to reopen and correctly concluded that he had not demonstrated prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir.2003) ("prima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to reopen"). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen. See Singh, 213 F.3d at 1052 (no abuse of discretion where BIA's decision is not arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.