FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA AZUCENA BENAVIDEZ, No. 12-70055
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-064-324
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Azucena Benavidez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen 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.
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Benavidez’s motion to
reopen where Benavidez failed to submit any newly available, material evidence of
hardship. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Contrary to Benavidez’s assertions in her
motion to reopen, no medical evidence relevant to the hardship to her qualifying
relatives was submitted with her motion.
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Benavidez’s motion to
reopen on the ground that she waived her allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel. See Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Benavidez’s contention that her case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-70055