Isabelita Colina v. Loretta E. Lynch , 649 F. App'x 512 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISABELITA PILAC COLINA, No. 14-71304
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-275-529
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Isabelita Pilac Colina, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011) . We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Colina’s motion to reopen
as untimely, where it was filed more than one year after the immigration judge’s in
absentia removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b)(4)(ii), and Colina failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is
prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error,
as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where
Colina failed to show sufficient evidence of change to invoke the changed country
conditions exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b)(4)(i);
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth
requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen based on changed country
conditions).
We reject Colina’s contention that the agency failed to properly consider the
evidence she submitted in support of her changed country conditions claim. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterating that the BIA
“does not have to write an exegesis on every contention” raised by petitioner, so
2 14-71304
long as it “consider[s] the issues raised, and announce[s] its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
not merely reacted.” (Citations and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71304