Case Name: Maria Juana Alvarez ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 276 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 06-73366
Parties: Maria Juana Alvarez ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 656–656

Head Matter:
Maria Juana Alvarez ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 2, 2008.
Maria Juana Alvarez Estrada, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Gladys M. SteffensGuzman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marie Alvarez Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings in order to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Alvarez Estrada contends that the immigration judge erred in concluding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under the Convention. The generalized evidence attached to her motion did not meet the CAT standard. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that CAT applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country); Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that motion to reopen must establish prima facie case demonstrating reasonable likelihood that requirements for relief have been satisfied).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.