
    Elsa Magali TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-70600, 09-71330.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Vadim Yuzefpolsky, Law Offices of Va-dim Yuzefpolsky, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Trial, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Carol Federi-ghi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-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: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Elsa Magali Torres, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her motion to reopen. 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. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss the petition for review in No. 08-70600, and we deny the petition for review in No. 09-71330.

We dismiss as moot Torres’s petition for review of the BIA’s January 17, 2008, order because the order has been vacated by the BIA.

In its April 16, 2009, order, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Torres’s motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to show prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See id., at 785(to establish prima facie eligibility, petitioner must show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied).

In No. 08-70600: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

In No. 09-71330: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     