Norma Roa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NORMA ROA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73027
Agency No. A023-098-518
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Norma Roa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73027 2
denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Roa’s second motion to
reopen as time- and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more
than two years after the BIA’s August 8, 2005, order dismissing her underlying
appeal, and Roa failed to demonstrate that she qualified for any exception to the
time and number limits. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).
To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to
invoke its sua sponte authority, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in
declining to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
Roa’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --