Case Name: Maria Lucia GARCIA-PELAEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-24
Citations: 473 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 09-70304
Parties: Maria Lucia GARCIA-PELAEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
Maria Lucia GARCIA-PELAEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 24, 2012.
Maria Lucia Garcia Pelaez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regina Byrd, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-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, GRABER, 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
Maria Lucia Garcia-Pelaez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Pelaez's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost two years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Garcia-Pelaez did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.