
    Edwin LAINEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70160
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Maria Janossy, Law Offices of Maria Janossy, Los Angeles, CA, Angela Y. Suh, Attorney, Law Offices Angela Y, Suh, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Scott Michael Marconda, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John Frederick Stanton, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edwin Lainez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lainez’s untimely motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Lainez failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (the BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute makes motive critical, [an applicant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or cir-cumstantiar); see Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

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