Case Name: Armando GARDUNO-PIZANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-19
Citations: 311 F. App'x 984
Docket Number: No. 08-71340
Parties: Armando GARDUNO-PIZANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 984–986

Head Matter:
Armando GARDUNO-PIZANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71340.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Feb. 19, 2009.
Armando Garduno-Pizana, Corona, CA, pro se.
Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, 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 discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (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 his circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because petitioner has failed to meet his 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 motion for summary denial of the petition for review in part 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).
This court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner's argument that the BIA should have reopened proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss in part is granted.
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 in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.