Teresa Figueroa Ocampo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TERESA FIGUEROA OCAMPO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73707
Agency No. A095-309-154
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Figueroa Ocampo, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73707 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because it was her second motion to reopen,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the second motion was filed more than 90 days
after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Petitioner
presented insufficient evidence to qualify for the changed country conditions
exception. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 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 lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention that she and her
children belong to a particular social group because she failed to exhaust that issue
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --