Rosa Gonzalez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 633 F. App'x 438 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA MARIA GONZALEZ, No. 13-72962
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-493-547
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Maria Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi
*
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).
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Gonzalez failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify
for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to
reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence
must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Gonzalez’s
contentions that the BIA did not consider her evidence properly. See Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-72962