FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NESLIHAN YILDIZHAN, No. 13-70427
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-113-410
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Neslihan Yildizhan, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion 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 F.3d
*
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).
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yildizhan’s untimely and
number-barred motion to reopen based on its finding that the evidence was
insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. See
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (to prevail on a motion to
reopen based on changed country conditions, applicant must, inter alia,
demonstrate that the evidence establishes prima facie eligibility for relief). We
reject Yildizhan’s contentions that the BIA’s analysis was deficient, and Yildizhan
has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the entire record in
considering her motion, see Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.
2000). We do not consider the new evidence referenced in Yildizhan’s opening
brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s
review is limited to the administrative record). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to
address Yildizhan’s contentions related to the underlying agency decisions because
this petition for review is not timely as to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-70427