Cheryl Brigitte Zambarrano- Rutledge v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHERYL BRIGITTE ZAMBARRANO-
RUTLEDGE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71280
13-72327
Agency No. A029-084-602
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016 **
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Cheryl Brigitte Zambarrano-Rutledge, a native and citizen of the
Philippines, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying her motion to reopen (petition No. 13-71280), and of the BIA order
FILED
MAR 23 2016
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 --

denying her motion to reconsider (petition No. 13-72327). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen or to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zambarrano-Rutledge’s
motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the
BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably
determined she failed to establish changed circumstances in the Philippines to
qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010).
Zambarrano-Rutledge does not challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to
reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71280/13-72327 2

-- 2 of 2 --