Nataliya Kyrylenko 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NATALIYA KYRYLENKO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70590
Agency No. A075-758-576
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nataliya Kyrylenko, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70590 2
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kyrylenko’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 Kyrylenko failed to establish
materially changed circumstances in Ukraine to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed
circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented
at prior hearing).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. 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 --