Rosa Eduviges Verduzco- Wence v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA EDUVIGES VERDUZCO-
WENCE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73770
Agency No. A079-521-090
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Eduviges Verduzco-Wence, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
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
FILED
DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Verduzco-Wence’s motion
to reopen as untimely because it was filed nearly nine years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Verduzco-Wence failed to demonstrate
changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89
(evidence submitted with motion to reopen must show conditions are qualitatively
different than at time of hearing); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640
(9th Cir. 2010) (change in personal circumstances is insufficient to excuse an
untimely motion to reopen). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Verduzco-
Wence’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73770 2

-- 2 of 2 --