Sofia Albertina Colop-Gomez; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SOFIA ALBERTINA COLOP-GOMEZ;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74238
Agency Nos. A098-591-743
A098-591-744
A098-591-745
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sofia Albertina Colop-Gomez and her children, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74238 2
motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Colop-Gomez’s motion to
reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(1); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a
motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief
sought); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying adverse credibility
determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
We reject Colop-Gomez’s contention that the BIA did not adequately
examine her evidence because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Colop-Gomez’s challenge to the
immigration judge’s underlying adverse credibility determination because this
petition for review is not timely as to the agency’s order finding her not credible.
See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --