Liboria Partida-Sanchez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIBORIA PARTIDA-SANCHEZ, No. 08-74444
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-067-878
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Liboria Partida-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
*
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).
MVD/Inventory
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of Partida-Sanchez’s
motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to her United
States citizen child. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006)
(explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in
motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Partida-Sanchez’s motion
to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any errors of fact or law in the
Board’s order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,
272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Partida-Sanchez challenges the
constitutionality of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of
1997 (NACARA) and contends it violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating
individuals differently based on nationality. This contention is foreclosed by
Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002), which rejected
a similar claim because NACARA’s intent, to favor aliens who had either “taken
unusual risks in escaping from oppressive governments” or “whose countries had
been profoundly ravaged by war,” satisfies the rational basis test.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.
MVD/Inventory 2 08-74444