Gladiola Medina-Gaspar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GLADIOLA MEDINA-GASPAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72629
Agency No. A096-049-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, GOODWIN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gladiola Medina-Gaspar, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72629 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Medina-Gaspar’s motion to
reopen as untimely, because it was filed more than five months after the BIA’s
final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to
invoke its sua sponte authority, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in
declining to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --