NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MAGDALENA RODRIGUEZDEL TORO, AKA Maria Magdalena Enriquez, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12-71970 Agency No. A076-611-025
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2015 ** Pasadena, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge and SINGLETON, *** Senior District Judge. 

# FILED
JUN 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.Maria Rodriguez-Del Toro, a native a nd citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration App eals’s (BIA) denial of her second motion to reopen proceedings, filed more than nine years after the order of removal became final. We have jurisdicti on under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1 Petitioner’s brief fails to address th e BIA’s order, provide the correct standard of review, or cite any record evid ence. “[F]ailure to comply with [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure] 28, by itself, is sufficient ground to justify dismissal of an appeal.” Cmty. Commerce Bank v. O’Brien (In re O’Brien) , 312 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency , 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (any argument not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” is waived). Even had Petitioner complied with Rule28, her petition fails. The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is review ed for abuse of discretion and will be reversed only if “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Valeriano v. Gonzalez , 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks omitted). A petitioner is generally limited to filing one motion to reopen within ninety days of the

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we restate them here only as necessary to explain our decision. 2issuance of the final administrative decision, though the time and numerical limitations do not apply to a motion filed to allow the petitioner to apply for asylum based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)–(3). To qualify fo r this exception, the petitioner bears a “heavy burden,” INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 110–11 (1988), of producing previously unavailable, material evid ence of changed country conditions that establish a prima facie case of eligibility for the relief sought. Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2007). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rodriguez failed to meet that burden. The declarations submitted to the BIA in support of Rodriguez’s motion lacked detail establishing that sh e was a member of a protected social group, see Navas v. INS , 217 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 2000) (refugee status is established by evidence that an appli cant has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion), or th at she was “more likely than not” to be tortured upon return to Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). In the absence of establishing eligibility for asylum or protection under the CAT, Rodriguez does not dispute that her second motion to reopen, f iled more than nine years after the order of removal became final, is untimely and number-barred. 3The petition for review is DENIED
.

4