Lilia Chirinkina 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LILIA CHIRINKINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-75207
09-72551
Agency No. A075-729-501
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lilia Chirinkina, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings (No. 08-75207), and denying her motion to reconsider
(No. 09-72551). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-75207 2
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and of a motion to
reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the consolidated petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chirinkina’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly one-and-a-half years after
the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chirinkina failed to
demonstrate materially changed circumstances in Uzbekistan to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence that
conditions in country of nationality had changed).
In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chirinkina’s
motion to reconsider, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), or in construing the motion to
reconsider as a motion to reopen and denying it as untimely and number barred,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge Chirinkina makes to the
BIA’s 2007 order affirming the immigration judge’s decision finding her not
credible, because Chirinkina failed to file a timely petition for review as to that
order. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 995.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-75207 3
No. 08-75207: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 09-72551: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --