NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 19 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN LAINEZ,                                   No.    16-70160

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A094-827-961

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Edwin Lainez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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,



      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).


, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lainez’s untimely motion to

reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Lainez failed to demonstrate prima

facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see 

(the BIA can

deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case); see also INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 

, 483 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute makes motive

critical, [an applicant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial”);

see Silaya v. Mukasey, 

, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                    16-70160