Case Name: Jose Maria MEJIA-MORA, a.k.a. Oscar Garcia-Vargas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-19
Citations: 538 F. App'x 807
Docket Number: No. 12-70107
Parties: Jose Maria MEJIA-MORA, a.k.a. Oscar Garcia-Vargas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 807–808

Head Matter:
Jose Maria MEJIA-MORA, a.k.a. Oscar Garcia-Vargas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70107.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
Jose Maria Mejia-Mora, Pico Rivera, CA, pro se.
OIL, Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Jose Maria Mejia-Mora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Mejia-Mora filed a timely motion to reopen with new, previously unavailable, evidence of hardship to his United States citizen daughter to support his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mejia-Mora's motion to reopen on the ground that the new evidence of his daughter's diagnosis with Bell's palsy was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See id. at 912-913.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.