Lissette Mena-Estrada v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74562 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 02 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LISSETTE MENA-ESTRADA, Petitioner, No. 08-74562 Agency No. A098-212-978 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Lissette Mena-Estrada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review for * 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). substantial evidence the BIA s factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mena-Estrada s motion to reopen as untimely because Mena-Estrada filed the motion more than nine months after the BIA s final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mena-Estrada failed to establish changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991. Mena-Estrada s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive asylum application is foreclosed by Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d. 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2009). Mena-Estrada s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen fails because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-74562

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.