The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-73341•Veronica Flores-Palma v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-73341Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 24, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERONICA FLORES-PALMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73341
Agency No. A072-670-372
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Veronica Flores-Palma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings
FILED
FEB 24 2015
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). Thus, we reject Flores-
Palma’s request for oral argument.
-- 1 of 2 --
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA dismissed Flores-Palma’s appeal of the denial of her untimely
motion because the record showed she received proper notice of her hearing and
because she failed to meet the requirements for a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, equitable tolling, or changed country conditions in Mexico. Flores-Palma
does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive grounds for denying the
motion. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). In
light of this conclusion, we do not reach Flores-Palma’s contentions regarding her
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-73341
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.