Martha Lucia Bernal Garcia; Andres Alberto Velez Bernal; Yuri Marcela Velez Bernal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARTHA LUCIA BERNAL GARCIA;
ANDRES ALBERTO VELEZ BERNAL;
YURI MARCELA VELEZ BERNAL,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70226
Agency Nos. A095-198-963
A095-198-959
A095-198-961
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Martha Lucia Bernal Garcia, Andres Alberto Velez Bernal, and Yuri
Marcela Velez Bernal, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motions to reopen.
FILED
MAY 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-70226 2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of
discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part
the petition for review, and we remand.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Andres and Martha’s motion
to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners
failed to establish changed circumstances in Colombia to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contentions regarding the BIA’s
October 28, 2004 order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying their
underlying claims for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture, because this petition for review is not timely as to
that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we grant the government’s request to remand the petition for review
as to Yuri’s (A095-198-961) separate motion to reopen, in order for the BIA to
address her claims in the first instance. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035,
1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a
[party].”); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-70226 3
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part;
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --