Case Name: Emma ALMOYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-23
Citations: 473 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 09-71475
Parties: Emma ALMOYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Emma ALMOYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71475.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 23, 2012.
Homayun F. Zadeh, Law Office of Homayun F. Zadeh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erica Miles, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Emma Almoyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Almoyan's motion to reopen because it considered the evidence and acted within its broad discretion in determining Almoyan did not show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (evidence offered with a motion to reopen must be material).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.