NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANKLIN A ROCHAC-GARCIA, No. 22-1943

Agency No.

Petitioner, A201-429-072 v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Franklin A Rochac-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen where Rochac-Garcia failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); see also Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An applicant must demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.”).

Rochac-Garcia’s contentions regarding a new proposed particular social group and political opinion are not properly before the court because he failed to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).

We reject Rochac-Garcia’s conclusory contention that the BIA erred in deeming his request for a stay of removal moot.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate

2 22-1943 issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-1943