Case Name: Norma Gladiz KENNY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-27
Citations: 540 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 11-73962
Parties: Norma Gladiz KENNY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
Norma Gladiz KENNY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73962.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Suzanne Nardone, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Norma Gladiz Kenny, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed, v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA used the correct legal standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying Kenny's motion to reopen as untimely where Kenny filed her motion six years after her order of removal became final, and she failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to waive the one-year filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Kenny's remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.