Case Name: Rosalina Velasquez GARFIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 07-73974
Parties: Rosalina Velasquez GARFIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
Rosalina Velasquez GARFIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73974.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 4, 2010.
Rosalina Velasquez Garfias, Gilroy, CA, pro se.
OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosalina Velasquez Garfias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for re view of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that new evidence regarding Garfias's daughter was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (recognizing that Board's denial of motion to reopen shall be reversed only if "arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law").
To the extent Garfias challenges the Board's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.