Mayra Graciela Cardenas Mendez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYRA GRACIELA CARDENAS
MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70242
Agency No. A096-362-961
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mayra Graciela Cardenas Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
FILED
JUN 29 2015
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 --

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
We grant Cardenas Mendez’s motion to accept her late-filed reply brief.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cardenas Mendez’s
untimely and number-barred motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for the relief sought, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986; see also Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”). Cardenas Mendez’s contention that the
BIA did not give full and fair consideration to all the evidence does not overcome
the presumption that the agency reviewed all of the evidence she presented. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of our
conclusions, we need not reach Cardenas Mendez’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-70242

-- 2 of 2 --