Case Name: Ana Maria AMEZQUITA-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 13-73661
Parties: Ana Maria AMEZQUITA-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
Ana Maria AMEZQUITA-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73661.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Decided Nov. 24, 2015.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Dawn S. Conrad, Trial, O.I.L., Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, D.O.J.-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Ana Maria Amezquita-Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings and to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amezquita-Salazar's motion to reopen as she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008). We reject petitioner's contentions that the BIA applied the incorrect legal standard and failed to adequately review the evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2009) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.