Octavio Vazquez Plaza v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 440 F. App'x 577 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCTAVIO VAZQUEZ PLAZA, No. 09-73115
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-835-993
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Octavio Vazquez Plaza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reopen, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Vazquez Plaza’s appeal
from the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen on the ground that he did not
demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B), where
he failed to provide sufficient evidence of the hardship that would be faced by his
new qualifying relatives in the event of his removal. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381
F.3d 942, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner demonstrates prima facie eligibility for
relief countenancing reopening where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood
that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(h)(1)(B) (listing hardship to qualifying relatives as statutory requirement
for relief).
Because the BIA dismissed Vazquez Plaza’s appeal on the ground that he
failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, it did not err by declining to
reach the IJ’s alternative, discretionary ground for denial of the motion to reopen.
See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (listing three grounds upon which
the agency may deny a motion to reopen).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73115