FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE PEREZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Jose C. No. 08-73728
Gonzalez, a.k.a. Jose Gonzalez-Perez,
Agency No. A095-819-589
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Perez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo due process claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the
evidence Perez-Gonzalez submitted with his motion to reopen was insufficient to
warrant reopening. See id. at 601 (if “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen
proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary
determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a
prima facie case for that relief,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from
revisiting the merits).
To the extent Perez-Gonzalez contends that the BIA failed to consider some
or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome
the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See id. at 603.
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Perez-Gonzalez’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 08-73728