Marina Del Rosario Lima Jacobo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARINA DEL ROSARIO LIMA
JACOBO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 05-75524
07-70545
Agency No. A075-501-410
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.
In these consolidated cases, Marina Del Rosario Lima Jacobo, a native and
citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying her motions to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

05-75524/07-70545 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981,
984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part petition No. 05-75524,
and deny in part and dismiss in part petition No. 07-70545.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Lima Jacobo’s first motion
to reopen as untimely, and by denying her second motion as untimely and
numerically barred, where both motions were filed more than 90 days after the
BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lima Jacobo failed to
establish changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time and number limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is
. . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who
previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear
of future persecution.”).
We decline to reconsider Lima Jacobo’s challenge to the agency’s
underlying adverse credibility determination in her first motion to reopen because
this court already decided the issue in Lima Jacobo v. Ashcroft, No. 03-73871 (9th
Cir. Dec. 13, 2004). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991)
(explaining that under the ‘law of the case doctrine,’one panel of an appellate court

-- 2 of 3 --

05-75524/07-70545 3
will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in
the same case).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Lima Jacobo’s contention in petition
No. 05-75524, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel before the
immigration judge and was unable to adequately represent herself on direct appeal,
because she failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 676-77 (9th Cir. 2004). Jacobo also failed to exhaust her contention in
petition No. 07-70545, that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against
women in Guatemala. See id.
No. 05-75524: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 07-70545: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --