Haridy v. Holder

372 F. App'x 703
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 24, 2010·No. 07-71013·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Moustafa El Sayed Haridy, a native of Saudi Arabia and citizen of Egypt, 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, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Haridy’s motion to reopen because Haridy did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also 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”).

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

Haridy v. Holder, 372 F. App'x 703 (9th Cir. 2010).

372 F. App'x 703 (Haridy v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related