Case Name: Edwin Leonel PEREZ-MAZARIEGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 07-73956
Parties: Edwin Leonel PEREZ-MAZARIEGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Edwin Leonel PEREZ-MAZARIEGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73956.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Carol A. Dvorkin, Esquire, Law Office of Carol A. Dvorkin, Woodside, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann M. Welhaf, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, 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
Edwin Leonel Perez-Mazariego, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Perez-Mazariego's contention, the BIA considered the evidence of changed country conditions in its decision to deny his motion to reopen. Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Perez-Mazariego did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.