Telma Judith Ramirez Gregorio v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TELMA JUDITH RAMIREZ
GREGORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70658
Agency No. A075-588-097
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 9, 2014 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Telma Judith Ramirez Gregorio (“Ramirez Gregorio”), a native and citizen
of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
FILED
JUL 11 2014
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 3 --

order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We grant the petition in part, dismiss in part, and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Ramirez Gregorio’s motion to
reopen. Ramirez Gregorio presented significant evidence of changed country
conditions in Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). This evidence showed
that femicide in Guatemala has increased significantly in the years since Ramirez
Gregorio’s removal proceedings. Thus, we grant Ramirez Gregorio’s petition for
review with respect to her motion to reopen, based on changed country conditions
in Guatemala. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008); Malty
v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction over Ramirez Gregorio’s other claims for relief. See
Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order) (no jurisdiction
over exercise of prosecutorial discretion); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction over BIA’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte); Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.
2010) (no jurisdiction over denial of voluntary departure). Thus, we dismiss the
petition with respect to these claims
2

-- 2 of 3 --

We GRANT Ramirez Gregorio’s petition in part, DISMISS in part, and
REMAND for proceedings consistent with this disposition. The government shall
bear the costs of this petition for review.
GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --