Case Name: Ramona Arreola CASILLAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-29
Citations: 311 F. App'x 63
Docket Number: No. 08-73383
Parties: Ramona Arreola CASILLAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 63–64

Head Matter:
Ramona Arreola CASILLAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2009.
Filed Jan. 29, 2009.
Ramona Arreola Casillas, Bloomington, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Yamileth G. Handuber, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discre- tíon. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir.2008).
Petitioner's claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner and her circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because petitioner has failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary denial of the petition for review is granted because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
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.