Guzman v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Guzman v. Mukasey

278 F. App'x 789

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 2008

DocketNo. 07-74713

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F. App'x 789 (Guzman v. Mukasey) 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

Guzman v. Mukasey, 278 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[790]*790MEMORANDUM

**

Petitioners seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. Petitioners’ general evidence of torture does not demonstrate a prima facie case that they, in particular, would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Kamalthas, 251 F.3d at 1284. Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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

[790]*790MEMORANDUM

**

Petitioners seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. Petitioners’ general evidence of torture does not demonstrate a prima facie case that they, in particular, would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Kamalthas, 251 F.3d at 1284. Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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)

278 F. App'x 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack