Leticia Perez Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74041 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 04 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LETICIA PEREZ GONZALEZ, Petitioner, No. 08-74041 Agency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

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.