Court Opinion

ID: 8673264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:48:19.427826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:22.606716
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
Petitioners’ claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary denial in part of the petition for review is granted because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case if a prior adverse discretionary decision was made by the agency).
All other 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.
*591PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.