FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 01 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA NELY IRAHETA-MEJIA, No. 12-74146
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-922-147
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Nely Iraheta-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order
denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and remand,
Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Iraheta-Mejia’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the final
administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Iraheta-Mejia failed to
establish materially changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-89 (9th Cir. 2010)
(evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from what
could have been presented at prior hearing). We reject Iraheta-Mejia’s contentions
that the agency’s treatment of her affidavit and other evidence was improper or
inadequate. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an
exegesis on every contention”).
Contrary to Iraheta-Mejia’s contention, the BIA did not err in treating her
motion to remand as a second motion to reopen. See Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d
911, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (motion to remand filed while appeal of IJ’s
denial of previous motion to reopen was pending was properly treated as a second
motion to reopen). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Iraheta-Mejia’s
2 12-74146
motion to remand as untimely and number-barred because this second motion was
filed over three years after the final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Iraheta-Mejia failed to establish materially changed
circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and
number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89.
Iraheta-Mejia does not challenge the agency’s determinations regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Iraheta-Mejia’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74146