Case Name: Piedad Del Carmen Perez PERTUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 08-74821
Parties: Piedad Del Carmen Perez PERTUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
Piedad Del Carmen Perez PERTUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74821.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Piedad Del Carmen Perez Pertuz, Glendale, CA, pro se.
John D. Williams, Esquire, Julia Tyler, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, HI-District Counsel, Es quire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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
Piedad del Carmen Perez Pertuz, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez Pertuz's July 3, 2008, motion to reopen as number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (party may file only one motion to reopen proceedings), and Perez Pertuz has not met any of the exceptions to the number bar, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.