FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUGUSTIN SANTOS-SANTOS, No. 11-70650
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-460-473
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Augustin Santos-Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for 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).
To the extent Santos-Santos presented non-cumulative evidence of hardship
regarding his children’s educational needs, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reopen where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate
any likely impact on the hardship determination in Santos-Santos’s case. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (prima facie
eligibility for relief is demonstrated where “the evidence reveals a reasonable
likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied” (internal
quotations omitted)).
Because the BIA’s determination that Santos-Santos did not demonstrate a
prima facie case for relief is dispositive, we do not reach his remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-70650