Oganesian
Oganesian v. Holder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Anaid Oganesian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Oganesian’s motion to reopen proceedings to apply for protection under the *662 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly treated Oganesian’s motion as a motion to reopen rather than a motion to reconsider because she sought to apply for new relief, and did not identify an error of fact or law by the agency. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oganesian’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT protection. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir.2004) (“To qualify for reopening under the Torture Convention, an alien must establish a prima facie case that ‘it is more likely than not that ... she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.’ ”) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(2)). In Oganesian’s…