From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plaza v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 28, 2011
440 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 09-73115.

Submitted June 15, 2011.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

June 28, 2011.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A092-835-993.

Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


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 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.


Summaries of

Plaza v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 28, 2011
440 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Plaza v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:OCTAVIO VAZQUEZ PLAZA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 28, 2011

Citations

440 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2011)