EVELIA CAMPUZANO BLANCO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73915 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVELIA CAMPUZANO-BLANCO, Petitioner, No. 10-73915 Agency No. A097-857-938 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Evelia Campuzano-Blanco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and * 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). review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Campuzano-Blanco s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over nine months after the BIA s order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Campuzano-Blanco failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) ( Asylum is not available to victims of indiscriminate violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground. ). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s November 2, 2009, order dismissing Campuzano-Blanco s appeal from the immigration judge s decision denying cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See MejiaHernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 10-73915 Finally, we reject Campuzano-Blanco s contention that her removal results in the deprivation of her children s due process rights. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 10-73915
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.
