Victor Armenta-Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR ARMENTA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71434
Agency No. A092-282-272
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Victor Armenta-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806
(9th Cir. 2012), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Armenta-Rodriguez’s
motion to reopen because Armenta-Rodriguez did not demonstrate that the
evidence he submitted with the motion was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at his immigration hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (a
motion to reopen shall not be granted unless the “evidence sought to be offered is
material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at
the former hearing[.]”); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (evidence capable of being discovered at time of hearing cannot serve as
basis for motion to reopen).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Armenta-Rodriguez’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-71434 2

-- 2 of 2 --