NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
JOSE RUTILIO MONTALVO- No. 08-72796
ARCHILA,
Agency No. A078-914-996
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rutilio Montalvo-Archila, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
*
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).
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montalvo-Archila’s motion
to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening given the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) underlying adverse credibility determination. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may
deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the
underlying relief sought); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed
circumstances immaterial).
We lack jurisdiction to review Montalvo-Archila’s challenge to the IJ’s
underlying adverse credibility determination. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 995.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-72796