
    Augustin SANTOS-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2015.
    Manuel Rios, III, Rios & Cruz, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Hillel Ryder Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, 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

Augustin Santos-Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

To the extent Santos-Santos presented non-cumulative evidence of hardship regarding his children’s educational needs, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate any likely impact on the hardship determination in Santos-Santos’s case. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 n. 6 (9th Cir.2006) (prima facie eligibility for relief is demonstrated where “the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied” (internal quotations omitted)).

Because the BIA’s determination that Santos-Santos did not demonstrate a pri-ma facie case 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     