Flor De Maria Virginia Bermudez Morales 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).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOR DE MARIA VIRGINIA
BERMUDEZ MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74324
Agency No. A075-752-484
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Flor De Maria Virginia Bermudez Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

jlf/Inventory 06-74324 2
denying petitioner’s fourth motion to reopen the underlying denial of her
application for cancellation of removal relief. The BIA held that Bermudez
Morales’s motion was numerically barred.
Bermudez Morales contends that the BIA erred in finding a numerical bar to
her motion because she presented new evidence that her new-born United States
citizen son was a qualifying relative and she was therefore eligible for cancellation
relief. “[A]n alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to one
motion to reopen the removal proceedings . . . .” Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028,
1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)). We conclude that the BIA
did not abuse its discretion in denying Bermudez Morales’s fourth motion to
reopen as numerically barred, and the motion did not meet any of the regulatory
exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) - (3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --