
    Boghos Ohannes JANSEZIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71107.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    David Leonard Ross, Esquire, Law Offices Of David L. Ross, P.A., Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office Of The Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin A. Moresi, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Boghos Ohannes Jansezian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jansezian’s untimely motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and conclusory allegations” insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility); Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (“[T]he evidence [petitioner] introduced was too general to demonstrate a well-founded fear that [petitioner] would personally be persecuted.”)

We do not consider the new evidence Jansezian referenced in his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary the government’s motion to strike.

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