Rosalina Velasquez Garfias v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSALINA VELASQUEZ GARFIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73974
Agency No. A095-295-918
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rosalina Velasquez Garfias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that new evidence
regarding Garfias’s daughter was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v.
INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that Board’s denial of
motion to reopen shall be reversed only if “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”).
To the extent Garfias challenges the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings
sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ekimian v. INS,
303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN
PART.

-- 2 of 2 --