The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 1, 2010.
Hector Guillermo Mendez-Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A095-196-475.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Hector Guillermo Mendez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Rodriguez' motion to re-open because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that Mendez-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. 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); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground).