IVIN NAVARRO GUZMAN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73669 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVIN AMARILDO NAVARRO GUZMAN; DILBIA ARCELY DE NAVARRO PEREZ, No. 10-73669 Agency Nos. A074-824-521 A074-824-520 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2013** Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ivin Amarildo Navarro Guzman and Dilbia Arcely De Navarro Perez, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eleven years after the BIA s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for relief from deportation. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); MendezGutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ( vague and conclusory allegations insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-73669

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.