Case Name: Socorro Banasan DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-13
Citations: 475 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 10-72029
Parties: Socorro Banasan DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Socorro Banasan DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72029.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
Philip Sarmiento, The Law Office of Philip B. Sarmiento, Union City, CA, for Socorro Banasan De Guzman.
John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Socorro Banasan De Guzman, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying De Guzman's motion to reopen because she failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in the Philippines. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990.
We lack jurisdiction to consider De Guzman's unexhausted request for humanitarian relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).