
    Marvin Mariveles MANZO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71807
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    Ben Loveman, Esquire, Attorney, Reeves & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Matt Crapo, 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: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marvin Mariveles Manzo, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err, violate due process, or abuse its discretion in denying Manzo’s motion to reopen, where the record does not support Manzo’s contentions that the BIA relied on speculation, failed to address claims presented in his motion,' failed to consider relevant evidence or positive equities, and failed to provide a reasoned . explanation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

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