
    Juan De Jesus VASQUEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73855.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Susan Bennett Green, Trial, Oil, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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 de Jesus Vasquez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Lopez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief pursuant to section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”), where he did not address how he would demonstrate good moral character or his eligibility for relief as a matter of discretion. See NACARA, Pub.L. 105-100 § 203, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997); see also Al-billo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir.2005) (“A motion to reopen to apply for NACARA relief 'will not be granted unless an alien can demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under NA-CARA”).

Because the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Lopez did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility 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.
     