BLANCA GRIJALVA Y GRIJALVA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73541 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BLANCA ESPERANZA GRIJALVA Y GRIJALVA, No. 11-73541 Agency No. A070-193-296 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Blanca Esperanza Grijalva y Grijalva, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 * 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Grijalva filed an untimely and number-barred motion to reopen claiming changed conditions, and that she would be subjected to domestic abuse in Guatemala. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Grijalva s motion because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See id. at 996 (to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed conditions, petitioner must demonstrate that the new evidence, considered with the evidence from the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for relief). We reject Grijalva s contention that the BIA failed to properly address the issues presented in her motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA does not have to write an exegesis on every contention ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-73541

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.