Blanca Esperanza Grijalva Ygrijalva v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

11-73541Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 10, 2013

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLANCA ESPERANZA GRIJALVA Y
GRIJALVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73541
Agency No. A070-193-296
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Blanca Esperanza Grijalva y Grijalva, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Grijalva filed an untimely and number-barred motion to reopen claiming
changed conditions, and that she would be subjected to domestic abuse in
Guatemala. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Grijalva’s motion
because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility
for the relief sought. See id. at 996 (to prevail on a motion to reopen based on
changed conditions, petitioner must demonstrate that the new evidence, considered
with the evidence from the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility
for relief). We reject Grijalva’s contention that the BIA failed to properly address
the issues presented in her motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73541 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.