Jose Marmol Bernabe v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ABRAHAM MARMOL BERNABE, No. 16-74021 Petitioner, Agency No. A029-217-336 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Jose Abraham Marmol Bernabe, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Marmol Bernabe’s motion for reconsideration and motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marmol Bernabe’s motion to reconsider where Marmol Bernabe failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing standard for a motion to reconsider). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marmol Bernabe’s untimely motion to reopen where he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the respondent establishes a prima facie case of eligibility for the underlying relief sought.”). We reject as without merit Marmol Bernabe’s contention that his case should be remanded due to the fact the government did not file an opposition to his motion to reopen. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-74021 16-74021 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Marmol Bernabe v. Jefferson Sessions 13 July 2018 Agency Unpublished 272c7f730deb45f61383f9a0b15378a72aa7d687

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals