eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2011-01

Erick Galvez-Palma v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 410 F. App'x 68 ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK LUDWING GALVEZ-PALMA;                       No. 08-74546
ISABEL CRISTINA GALVEZ,
Agency Nos. A071-586-251
Petitioners,                                   A071-586-253
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before:        BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Erick Ludwing Galvez-Palma and Isabel Cristina Galvez, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motions to reconsider and reopen. We have
jurisdiction under
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
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).
motions to reopen or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the BIA’s determination
that their motion to reconsider was untimely and the BIA’s denial of their motion
to reopen to reapply for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen their application for asylum and withholding of removal as untimely
because they did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of
removal, see
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and they failed to demonstrate material
changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limit, see
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey,
    538 F.3d 988
    , 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for
relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances).
We decline to consider the new evidence petitioners attach to their opening
brief because our review of the BIA’s order is limited to the administrative record.
See Fisher v. INS,
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2                                     08-74546