Gladys Chepkurir Kiptabut 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLADYS CHEPKURIR KIPTABUT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70612
Agency No. A076-642-843
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gladys Chepkurir Kiptabut, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) January 23, 2007, order
denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-70612 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v.
INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review de novo due process claims,
Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kiptabut’s motion to reopen
because her motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Kiptabut failed to
establish changed country conditions or other special circumstances that would
warrant reopening, 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.”).
Kiptabut’s contention that the BIA violated her due process rights by failing
to review documents submitted with her motion to reopen is belied by the record.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 19, 2007, order denying
Kiptabut’s motion to reconsider because this petition for review is not timely as to
that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 401-06 (1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --