FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZINAIDA IVANOVNA LIPSYUK, No. 09-71648
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-197-142
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY Circuit Judges.
Zinaida Ivanovna Lipsyuk, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th
Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lipsyuk’s motion to reopen
because Lipsyuk did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for adjustment of
status as the battered spouse of a United States citizen. See id. at 994.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in also denying Lipsyuk’s motion to
reopen because the motion failed to comply with the requirements set forth in
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (the failure to comply with Lozada is significant
where the facts underlying petitioner’s claim are not plain on the face of the
record).
We do not consider the July 29, 2009, Notice of Action regarding Lipsyuk’s
I-360 petition because our review is limited to the administrative record. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71648