Case ID: f-appx_429/html/0681-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luz Martha GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70698.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed April 27, 2011.
    Luz Martha Guzman, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Julia Tyler, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luz Martha Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Guzman’s motion to reopen because she did not request any relief over which the BIA had jurisdiction. See Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 110 (BIA 2009); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1) (“USCIS has sole jurisdiction over all petitions for U nonimmigrant status.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 13, 2008, order dismissing Guzman’s appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal because she failed to timely petition this court for review of that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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