Case ID: f-appx_408/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norma ROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73027.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
    
      Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Russell John Verby, James A. Hurley, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Roa’s second motion to reopen as time — and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s August 8, 2005, order dismissing her underlying appeal, and Roa failed to demonstrate that she qualified for any exception to the time and number limits. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (2) — (3).

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in declining to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Roa’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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