Denia Ruth Murga-Sosa 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).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENIA RUTH MURGA-SOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74022
Agency No. A027-622-573
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Denia Ruth Murga-Sosa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen removal
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-74022 2
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,
1039 (9th Cir. 2002), and de novo questions of law, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516
(9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Murga-Sosa’s second
motion to reopen as numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (limiting
party to one motion to reopen proceedings), and concluding that Petitioner failed to
establish grounds for waiving the numerical restriction, cf. Varela v. INS, 204 F.3d
1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000) (numerical limits may be waived in cases of fraud as
long as the petitioner acts with due diligence).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Murga-Sosa’s contention that the IJ did not
give her notice regarding the consequences of failing to depart because she failed
to raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (noting that due process challenges that are “procedural in nature” must be
exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --