Case Name: Maria RIVERA-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-24
Citations: 474 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: No. 10-73446
Parties: Maria RIVERA-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 707–707

Head Matter:
Maria RIVERA-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73446.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 24, 2012.
John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer A. Singer, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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 Rivera-Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivera-Marquez's motion to reopen on the ground that it was time-and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico in order to qualify for an exception to the filing limitations, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen Rivera-Marquez's proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.