Case Name: Rosa Eduviges VERDUZCO-WENCE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-10
Citations: 548 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 11-73770
Parties: Rosa Eduviges VERDUZCO-WENCE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 480–480

Head Matter:
Rosa Eduviges VERDUZCO-WENCE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73770.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 10, 2013.
Shan Potts, Potts Martinez, Attorneys at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Timothy Hayes, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Rosa Eduviges Verduzco-Wence, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Verduzco-Wence's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed nearly nine years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Verduzco-Wence failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence submitted with motion to reopen must show conditions are qualitatively different than at time of hearing); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir.2010) (change in personal circumstances is insufficient to excuse an untimely motion to reopen). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Verduzco-Wence's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.