FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIDAL ERNESTO ZUNIGA-BRAVO, No. 10-72217
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-889-968
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Vidal Ernesto Zuniga-Bravo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez
v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
Zuniga-Bravo has waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his motion to
rescind his in absentia removal order based on lack of notice. See Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief may
be deemed waived).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Zuniga-Bravo’s motion to
reopen on the ground that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief
from removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (a motion
to reopen will not be granted unless it establishes a prima facie case for relief; a
prima facie case is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief
have been satisfied); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An
alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).
Zuniga-Bravo’s contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance failed to
provide sufficient reasoning is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d
845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-72217