FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA RAMIREZ-VELASQUEZ, No. 07-71083
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-063-251
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Ramirez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen and rescind a
*
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).
DL/Research
prior deportation order and terminate removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen, Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.
2006), and we review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d
1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Because Ramirez-Velasquez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of
justice, she may not at this point collaterally attack her 1991 deportation order. See
Hernandez-Almanza v. INS, 547 F.2d 100, 102-03 (9th Cir. 1976). The agency
therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Velasquez’s motion to
reopen. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of
a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to
law”).
Contrary to Ramirez-Velasquez’s contention, the BIA did not impermissibly
ignore her arguments regarding her motion to reopen.
To the extent that Ramirez-Velasquez challenges the agency’s decision not
to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
DL/Research 2 07-71083