Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

422 F. App'x 587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 2011

Docket10-71629

StatusUnpublished

This text of 422 F. App'x 587 (Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 422 F. App'x 587 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez (“Mejia”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to re *588 open. The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. I.N.S. v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 449, 105 S.Ct. 2098, 85 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, and we deny the petition.

The BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for relief. I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Singh-Kaur v. I.N.S., 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia has not suffered and is not expected to suffer mistreatment that rises to the level of persecution. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). The Mexican officials’ statements that Mejia lacked proper identification documents and was ineligible to receive social security and medical benefits did not rise to the level of persecution nor establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Ghaly v. I.N.S., 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (persecution is an “extreme concept”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mejia did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006). Similarly, the BIA did not err in concluding that Mejia had failed to demonstrate that he would likely be tortured in Mexico, and that he therefore did not establish eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Villegas v. Mulcasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir.2008) (torture refers to the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering); Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION DENIED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez (“Mejia”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to re *588 open. The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. I.N.S. v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 449, 105 S.Ct. 2098, 85 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, and we deny the petition.

The BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for relief. I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Singh-Kaur v. I.N.S., 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia has not suffered and is not expected to suffer mistreatment that rises to the level of persecution. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). The Mexican officials’ statements that Mejia lacked proper identification documents and was ineligible to receive social security and medical benefits did not rise to the level of persecution nor establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Ghaly v. I.N.S., 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (persecution is an “extreme concept”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mejia did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006). Similarly, the BIA did not err in concluding that Mejia had failed to demonstrate that he would likely be tortured in Mexico, and that he therefore did not establish eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Villegas v. Mulcasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir.2008) (torture refers to the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering); Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F. App'x 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ezequiez-mejia-alvarez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack