FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL PEREZ-CORNEJO, AKA Saul No. 15-70535
Perez,
Agency No. A092-500-703
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Saul Perez-Cornejo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency applied the correct legal standards and did not abuse its
discretion in denying Perez-Cornejo’s motion to reopen, where the agency
considered both the positive and negative factors presented in his case and
determined that he was not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2011) (in determining whether to
exercise its discretion in favor of a petitioner, the agency must consider “all
relevant factors includ[ing] taking into account both negative and positive
circumstances relevant to each [p]etitioner”).
Perez-Cornejo’s contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its
decision is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every
contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and
announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-70535