Juan Vasquez-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch

623 F. App'x 471
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 25, 2015
Docket13-73855
StatusUnpublished

This text of 623 F. App'x 471 (Juan Vasquez-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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
Juan Vasquez-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 623 F. App'x 471 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Juan de Jesus Vasquez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

*472 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Lopez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief pursuant to section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”), where he did not address how he would demonstrate good moral character or his eligibility for relief as a matter of discretion. See NACARA, Pub.L. 105-100 § 203, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997); see also Al-billo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir.2005) (“A motion to reopen to apply for NACARA relief 'will not be granted unless an alien can demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under NA-CARA”).

Because the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Lopez did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief is dispositive, we do not reach his remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
623 F. App'x 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-vasquez-lopez-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.