Case Name: Susana Ramirez LEON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-17
Citations: 270 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 07-74557
Parties: Susana Ramirez LEON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Susana Ramirez LEON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74557.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008 .
Filed March 17, 2008.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings following entry of an in absentia order denying cancellation of removal and voluntary departure.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen where she did not show she would more likely than not be tortured upon return to Mexico and therefore failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (applicant for CAT relief must prove "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal"); Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir.2003) ("prima facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to reopen").
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary denial of this petition for review is granted.
All 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.