Maria De La Gracia Zepeda Real 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA DE LA GRACIA ZEPEDA
REAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74908
Agency No. A076-710-013
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Maria De La Gracia Zepeda Real, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74908 2
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zepeda Real’s motion
to reopen because she did not submit any evidence relating to her continuous
physical presence. See INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 141 (1981) (per curiam)
(movant must show prima facie eligibility for the underlying substantive relief
requested in a motion to reopen); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512
(9th Cir. 2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous
physical presence for cancellation purposes).
We lack jurisdiction to review Zepeda Real’s collateral challenge to her
expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) & (e)(2) (judicial review
of an expedited removal order is restricted to limited habeas review before the
district court); see also Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th
Cir. 2004) (collateral attack on expedited removal orders “severely” limited).
Zepeda Real’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --