Case ID: f-appx_118/html/0340-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Celia SOTO CRUZ DE RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71670.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
    
    Decided Jan. 18, 2005.
    Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David M. McConnell, Julia Doig Wilcox, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Celia Soto Cruz de Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, de Martinez v. INS, 874 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition.

The BIA acted within its broad discretion to deny Soto-Cruz de Ramirez’s motion to reopen and did not deprive her of her rights to due process. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (stating that the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief’); see also SalvadorCalleros v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.