
    Daniel Bravo IZARRARAS and Celia Torres Moreno, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
    Daniel Bravo Izarraras, Palmdale, CA, pro se.
    Celia Torres Moreno, Palmdale, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Dana Michelle Camilleri, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Bravo Izarraras and Celia Torres Moreno, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See id. at 986 (agency may deny a motion to reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that generalized evidence of violence and crime was insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding, or relief under CAT).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to not exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     