Catalina Esthela Ortiz Carrasco v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CATALINA ESTHELA ORTIZ
CARRASCO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73525
Agency No. A099-043-434
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Catalina Esthela Ortiz Carrasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
FILED
MAR 22 2016
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 --

constitutional claims. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortiz Carrasco’s motion to
reopen, where the motion was filed more than six years after her final order of
removal, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ortiz Carrasco failed to demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for asylum that would invoke the changed country conditions
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (news articles did not provide
a link to show that petitioner would be affected by any change in country
conditions discussed in the articles); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated
by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected
ground.”).
Ortiz Carrasco’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence she
submitted with her motion is not supported by the record. See Cole v. Holder, 659
F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of
evidence submitted”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-73525 2

-- 2 of 2 --