FELIPA DE LOS ANGELES-MORENO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73834 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIPA DE LOS ANGELES-MORENO, a.k.a. Felipa Moreno, No. 11-73834 Agency No. A099-474-682 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Felipa De Los Angeles-Moreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 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). abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying De Los Angeles-Moreno s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed nearly two years after the BIA s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and De Los Angeles-Moreno failed to demonstrate 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); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence submitted with motion to reopen must show conditions are qualitatively different than at time of hearing); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 2010) (change in petitioner s health was a change in personal circumstances, not a change in country conditions sufficient to excuse an untimely motion to reopen). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-73834

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.