
    Felipe GALARZA-GALLEGOS, aka Felipe Gallegos, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71009
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 3, 2017
    David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa Damiano, 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, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Felipe Galarza-Gallegos, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Galarza-Gallegos’s untimely motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Galarza-Gallegos failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996; see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution “too speculative”). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Galarza-Gallegos’s family social group contention.

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