Alayed

Alayed v. Ashcroft

Good Law
75 F. App'x 641
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 16, 2003No. 02-70080; Agency Nos. A70-639-560, A70-639-561California311 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mohammad Alayed, a native and citizen of Jordan, and his wife Lubina Alayed, a native of Israel and citizen of Jordan, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture. We apply the transitional rules under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222-23 (9th Cir.2002). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the Alayeds’ motion to reopen because they did not demonstrate that “it is ‘more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed’ to [Jordan].” Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Abassi, 305 F.3d at 1030 , and 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16 (c)(2)(4) & 208.18(b)(2)).

*642 We lack jurisdiction to review the Alayeds’ contention on appeal that conditions in Jordan have recently deteriorated because this claim was not brought before the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.