Case ID: f-appx_645/html/0551-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cheryl Brigitte ZAMBARRANO-RUTLEDGE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-71280, 13-72327.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 23, 2016.
    Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, En-cino, CA, for Petitioner.
    Raya Jarawan, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Meadow W. Platt, Trial, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cheryl Brigitte Zambarrano-Rutledge, a native and citizen of the Philippines, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen (petition No. 13-71280), and of the BIA order denying her motion to reconsider (petition No. 13-72327). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zambarrano-Rutledge’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably determined she failed to establish changed circumstances in the Philippines to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010).

Zambarrano-Rutledge does not challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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