Case Name: Jarnail Singh VIRK; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 03-74398
Parties: Jarnail Singh VIRK; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
Jarnail Singh VIRK; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74398.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Jarnail Singh Virk, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Sukhwant Kaur Virk, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Astinder Kaur Virk, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, S. Nicole Nardone, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The painel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jarnail Singh Virk, Sukhwant Kaur Virk, and Astinder Kaur Virk, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioners' motion to reopen as it did not demonstrate that they were prima facie eligible for asylum or withholding of deportation. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1998).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.