Lissette Mena-Estrada 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LISSETTE MENA-ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74562
Agency No. A098-212-978
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Lissette Mena-Estrada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review for
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74562 2
substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mena-Estrada’s motion to
reopen as untimely because Mena-Estrada filed the motion more than nine months
after the BIA’s final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Mena-Estrada failed to establish changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify
for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991.
Mena-Estrada’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a
successive asylum application is foreclosed by Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d. 981, 989
(9th Cir. 2009).
Mena-Estrada’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence
submitted with the motion to reopen fails because she has not overcome the
presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --