Karina Santos-Robles v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 474 F. App'x 567 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 09 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KARINA LISETH SANTOS-ROBLES,                     No. 10-70114
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A099-524-395
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 26, 2012 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    Karina Liseth Santos-Robles, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
    pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
    affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen
    removal proceedings conducted in absentia. 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, Perez
    v. Mukasey, 
    516 F.3d 770
    , 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo questions of
    law, Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 
    581 F.3d 849
    , 854 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part
    and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying as untimely Santos-Robles’
    motion to reopen. Santos-Robles filed the motion more than two years after the
    order of removal, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(4)(ii) (motion to reopen in absentia
    proceedings generally must be filed within 180 days of the removal order), and she
    failed to establish changed country conditions that warranted reopening, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(4)(i).
    We lack jurisdiction to review Santos-Robles’ unexhausted contention that
    she did not receive proper notice of the hearing. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not
    raised before the BIA).
    Santos-Robles’ contention that the BIA’s streamlined order did not provide
    adequate reasons for its decision lacks merit. See Landin-Molina v. Holder, 
    580 F.3d 913
    , 917 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009) (when the BIA affirms under its streamlining
    procedures, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision).
    PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                   10-70114
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-70114

Citation Numbers: 474 F. App'x 567

Judges: Schroeder, Hawkins, Gould

Filed Date: 7/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024