Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrea HERNANDEZ-CORRAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74836.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
    Andrea Hernandez-Corral, Tarzana, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andrea Hernandez-Corral, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

Hernandez-Corral contends the BIA erred in denying her motion to reopen based on her parents’ recent attainment of lawful permanent resident status. In its July 21, 2005 decision, however, the BIA denied Hernandez-Corral’s motion to reopen as numerically barred, and she has not demonstrated that the BIA abused its discretion in denying that motion to reopen on this basis. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 596-600 (9th Cir.2006). The information regarding Hernandez-Corral’s parents’ attainment of legal permanent residence status was not before the BIA when it made its decision, and is not now properly before us.

Hernandez-Corral’s petition for review is denied without prejudice to her initiating further proceedings before the BIA.

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