FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASMINDA VERASTEGUI-VALLE, No. 13-70238
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-639-160
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Asminda Verastegui-Valle, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motions
to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
*
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).
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and review de novo claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Verastegui-Valle’s untimely
motions to reopen because she did not establish materially changed circumstances
in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence lacked materiality
because it recounted “generalized conditions” that did not show petitioner’s
situation was “appreciably different from the dangers faced by her fellow citizens”)
(internal citation and quotations omitted); Carrillo-Gonzales v. INS, 353 F.3d
1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (arguments of counsel do not constitute evidence). We
reject Verastegui-Valle’s contention that the BIA violated due process by depriving
her of the review of her case. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on due process challenge to proceedings).
We lack jurisdiction to review Verastegui-Valle’s contention that she was
denied the right to counsel because she failed to raise this issue to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims
not presented below).
2 13-70238
Further, we reject Verastegui-Valle’s due process contentions that she did
not knowingly waive her applications for relief from removal and did not receive
competent translation services. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246. Finally, contrary to
her contention, the BIA addressed and rejected her claim that her due process
rights were violated in prior proceedings.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70238