Case ID: f-appx_408/html/0007-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Lisbeth NAVARRO-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73138.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
    Maria Lisbeth Navarro-Vargas, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Edward C. Durant, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, 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

Maria Lisbeth Navarro-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarro-Vargas’ motion to reopen as time- and number-barred where the successive motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s July 27, 2004, order dismissing her underlying appeal, and Navarro-Vargas failed to demonstrate that she qualified for an exception to the time and number limits, or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003).

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