Case Name: Sergio Vera MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-27
Citations: 215 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 05-75672
Parties: Sergio Vera MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
Sergio Vera MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75672.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 27, 2006.
Sergio Vera Martinez, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sergio Vera Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vera Martinez's motion to reopen, because he did not 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").
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.