Case Name: Eber Isaac PORRAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-06
Citations: 548 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 12-71379
Parties: Eber Isaac PORRAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
Eber Isaac PORRAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 6, 2013.
Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Walter Bocchini, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Eber Isaac Porras, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Porras's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed thirteen years after IJ's final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Por-ras failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (agency may deny a motion to reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir.2006) ("vague and conclusory allegations" insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility). Because Porras's motion did not allege facts that would establish eligibility for relief, he was not entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.