Luquin Martinez v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 766 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA YOLANDA LUQUIN No. 07-71117
MARTINEZ,
Agency No. A076-868-819
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Maria Yolanda Luquin Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
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.
*
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).
DL/Research
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Luquin Martinez’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed over sixteen months after the BIA’s final
order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and Luquin Martinez does not
argue that any of the regulatory exceptions to the time limitation apply, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
Luquin Martinez’s contention that she is entitled to relief because her
removal would violate the substantive due process rights of her United States
citizen children is foreclosed. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594
(9th Cir. 1978) (observing that the argument that “the deportation order would
amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the constitutional
rights of the child . . . has been authoritatively rejected in numerous cases”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua
sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th
Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
DL/Research 2 07-71117