Lucia Sandoval-Amaro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUCIA SANDOVAL-AMARO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74638
Agency No. A075-682-513
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Lucia Sandoval-Amaro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74638 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759,
761 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to
reopen because petitioner’s failure to file the motion before the expiration of her
voluntary departure period rendered her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of
removal. See id. at 763-64; 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (the failure to depart voluntarily
within the time period results in a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including
cancellation of removal).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion
to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture because she did
not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and she failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in
Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), or prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie
eligibility for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --