David Vasquez-Cruz v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-71307 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID VASQUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, No. 08-71307 Agency No. A079-544-229 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. David Vasquez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, * 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). 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Cruz s motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining Vasquez-Cruz did not show prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law ). We lack jurisdiction to review Vasquez-Cruz s challenge to the BIA s October 29, 2007, order denying his application for cancellation of removal, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-71307

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.