Maria Rivera-Marquez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA RIVERA-MARQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73446
Agency No. A099-345-582
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Rivera-Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73446 2
discretion the denial of a 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 by denying Rivera-Marquez’s motion to
reopen on the ground that it was time- and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and she did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico in
order to qualify for an exception to the filing limitations, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
996.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen Rivera-Marquez’s
proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --