Maria Lucia Garcia-Pelaez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 LUCIA GARCIA-PELAEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70304
Agency No. A096-342-373
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.
Maria Lucia Garcia-Pelaez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her second
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70304 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Pelaez’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost two years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Garcia-Pelaez did not establish prima
facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting
reopening based on changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --