to be tortured in violation of the Convention. The Board denied the motion to reopen, holding that Sevoian had failed to make out a prima facie case for relief, because insufficient evidence supported his claim that he would face torture in Georgia. It concluded that the State Department report, which formed part of the record below, indicated that official torture of prisoners was used “for the most part” to extract confessions. Therefore, the Board reasoned, torture would not be used in a case involving Sevoian, who had simply avoided conscription. Hence, Sevoian had not met his burden to establish a prima facie case for relief under the Convention. Sevoian petitioned this court for review of the Board’s denial of reopening. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). I. A. The Supreme Court has identified three
holding that the boards denial of a motion to reopen is reviewable by the federal courts of appeals holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable