
    Juan Luis CANO-VILLA, AKA Alejandro Luis Garcia-Corral, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73354
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Sylvia L. Esparza, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Sylvia L. Esparza, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Katherine Lott, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Luis Cano-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cano-Villa’s motion to reopen and administratively close proceedings, where he did not establish prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 599 (9th Cir. 2006) (failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is one of at least three independent grounds on which the BIA can deny a motion to reopen).

We will not review the IJ’s determination regarding jurisdiction because the BIA did not rely on that ground. See Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2014) (court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision unless the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted (citation omitted)).

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