JUAN VASQUEZ-LOPEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73855 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN DE JESUS VASQUEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. 13-73855 Agency No. A094-947-213 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Juan de Jesus Vasquez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 * 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). abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Lopez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief pursuant to section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”), where he did not address how he would demonstrate good moral character or his eligibility for relief as a matter of discretion. See NACARA, Pub. L. 105-100 § 203, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997); see also Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A motion to reopen to apply for NACARA relief will not be granted unless an alien can demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under NACARA.”). Because the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Lopez did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility 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 13-73855

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.