Yuritzi Yazmin Rosales Salto 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YURITZI YAZMIN ROSALES SALTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72519
Agency No. A075-714-736
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TASHIMA, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Yuritzi Yazmin Rosales Salto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-72519 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosales Salto’s motion to
reopen because she failed to state any new facts or present any new evidence to
demonstrate the requisite physical presence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
(providing that a motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a
hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or
other evidentiary material.”). Further, Rosales Salto did not demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because her
I-130 petition was filed after April 30, 2001. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i); see
also Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[P]rima
facie eligibility for the relief sought is a prerequisite for the granting of a motion to
reopen.”).
We do not consider Rosales Salto’s contention regarding hardship, because
her failure to establish continuous physical presence is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --