Trisha Mukweya v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRISHA MUKWEYA, No. 08-73308
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-925-838
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Trisha Mukweya, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions 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
the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales,
*
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).
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mukweya’s motion to
reopen where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mukweya failed to establish materially changed
circumstances in Uganda to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit
for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring circumstances to have
changed sufficiently that petitioner now has a well-founded fear of persecution).
Because this issue is dispositive of Mukweya’s motion to reopen, we reject her
contention the BIA erred by failing to address whether she established prima facie
eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mukweya’s challenges to the BIA’s May
14, 2003, order, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73308