Esperanza Ruvalcaba- Sandoval 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ESPERANZA RUVALCABA-
SANDOVAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70298
Agency No. A078-650-226
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Esperanza Ruvalcaba-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70298 2
review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruvalcaba-Sandoval’s
motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over one year after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ruvalcaba-Sandoval failed to establish
changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility
for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances).
Ruvalcaba-Sandoval’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply the correct
legal standard and did not consider the facts are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --