Case ID: f-appx_518/html/0577-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria CORNEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 17, 2013.
    Richard Miyamoto, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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 Cornejo, 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 an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cornejo’s timely motion to reopen where Cornejo failed to demonstrate that the administrative procedures manual excerpt and the employment authorization card were not discoverable and could not have been presented to the immigration judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). The BIA did not err in not reconsidering its denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) because Cornejo did not raise these arguments in her motion.

In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Cornejo’s arguments regarding her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.

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