Case Name: Julio Cesar HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 542 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 11-72364
Parties: Julio Cesar HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
Julio Cesar HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Genevieve Holm, 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: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Julio Cesar Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez's motion to reopen because Hernandez did not show prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[mjere generalized lawlessness and violence . generally is not sufficient" for asylum).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.