Garcia v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA ISABEL GARCIA; JORGE No. 07-74254
LARA BOLANOS,
Agency Nos. A079-580-234
Petitioners, A079-580-235
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Norma Isabel Garcia and Jorge Lara Bolanos, wife and husband and natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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).
reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to
consider their motion under its sua sponte reopening authority because petitioners
failed to raise and argue that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to
review contentions not raised before the agency).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion
to reopen as time and number barred where the motion was filed over two years
after the BIA’s December 2, 2004, final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and the record failed to show there were changed circumstances in
Mexico warranting reopening under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 07-74254