Case Name: Flor De Maria Virginia BERMUDEZ MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 366 F. App'x 799
Docket Number: No. 06-74324
Parties: Flor De Maria Virginia BERMUDEZ MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
Flor De Maria Virginia BERMUDEZ MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74324.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
Flor De Maria Virginia Bermudez Morales, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Flor De Maria Virginia Bermudez Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying petitioner's fourth motion to reopen the underlying denial of her application for cancellation of removal relief. The BIA held that Bermudez Morales's motion was numerically barred.
Bermudez Morales contends that the BIA erred in finding a numerical bar to her motion because she presented new evidence that her new-born United States citizen son was a qualifying relative and she was therefore eligible for cancellation relief. "[A]n alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to one motion to reopen the removal proceedings.... " Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2008) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bermudez Morales's fourth motion to reopen as numerically barred, and the motion did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.