Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lissette MENA-ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
    Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lissette Mena-Estrada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mena-Estrada’s motion to reopen as untimely because Mena-Estrada filed the motion more than nine months after the BIA’s final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mena-Estrada failed to establish changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991.

Mena-Estrada’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive asylum application is foreclosed by Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir.2009).

Mena-Estrada’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen fails because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.