Case Name: Fely C. ABELLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 05-73365
Parties: Fely C. ABELLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
Fely C. ABELLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
Crisostomo G. Ibarra, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Don G. Scroggin, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fely C. Abella, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 & n. 7 (9th Cir.2006) (this court has jurisdiction to review cases "in which the BIA rules that a motion to reopen fails to satisfy procedural standards"). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner failed to submit new or previously unavailable evidence of her eligibility for suspension of deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) & (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.