Leticia Perez Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 407 F. App'x 223 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LETICIA PEREZ GONZALEZ, No. 08-74041
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-355-205
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Leticia Perez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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
*
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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(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 Perez Gonzalez’s motion to
reopen on the ground that she failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the
relief she sought. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003).
We are not persuaded that Perez Gonzalez’s removal would result in a
deprivation of her daughter’s constitutional rights. See Urbano de Malaluan v.
INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the contention that a parent’s
“deportation order would amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus
violate the constitutional rights of the child”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez Gonzalez’s contentions regarding
changed circumstances in Mexico, as well as her contention that the immigration
judge should have reopened proceedings sua sponte, because she failed to exhaust
these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 13, 2008, order
because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v.
INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-74041