Maria Garcia Pelaez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date filed: 2012-05-24
Citations: 473 F. App'x 694
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          MAY 24 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

MARIA LUCIA GARCIA-PELAEZ,                       No. 09-70304

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A096-342-373

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.



                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted May 15, 2012 **

Before:        CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Maria Lucia Garcia-Pelaez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her second

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.




          *
             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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v.

Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Pelaez’s motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost two years after the BIA’s

final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Garcia-Pelaez did not establish prima

facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.

2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting

reopening based on changed country conditions).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           2                                    09-70304