Case Name: Delia N. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-11
Citations: 383 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 07-73431
Parties: Delia N. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
Delia N. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73431.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 11, 2010.
Frank H. Kim, I, Esquire, National Legal Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Delia N. De Leon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and de novo questions of law, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
De Leon has waived any challenge to the BIA's dispositive determination that her second motion to reopen was numerically barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
We do not reach De Leon'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.