Saavedra v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Saavedra v. Holder

318 F. App'x 505

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 2009

DocketNo. 08-73777

StatusPublished

This text of 318 F. App'x 505 (Saavedra v. Holder) 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

Saavedra v. Holder, 318 F. App'x 505 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

Petitioners’ claim for protection under CAT failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). Because petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, respondent’s 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order [507]*5076.4(c) 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

MEMORANDUM

**

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

Petitioners’ claim for protection under CAT failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). Because petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, respondent’s 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order [507]*5076.4(c) 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)

318 F. App'x 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saavedra-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack