FELIPE RIVERA-BELTRAN V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-71342 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIPE RIVERA-BELTRAN, AKA Felipe De Jesus Beltran No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71342 Agency No. A200-086-141 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Felipe Rivera-Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in concluding that the new evidence submitted with Rivera-Beltran’s motion did not warrant reopening. Contrary to Rivera-Beltran’s contentions, the BIA’s order indicates that it adequately considered the new evidence and sufficiently explained its decision. See id. at 990-91 (“What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The BIA did not err in failing to specifically address Rivera-Beltran’s general statement that he is aware he has made mistakes and has “accomplished many changes in [his] life” as evidence of rehabilitation. See id. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71342

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.