SOFIA DELATORRE V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-71254 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 22 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SOFIA SALDIVAR DELATORRE, AKA Sofia Delatorre, AKA Sofia Saldivar, No. 15-71254 Agency No. A088-710-624 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Sofia Saldivar Delatorre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). decision denying her application for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Delatorre’s motion to reconsider, where she failed to establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (defining good moral character “[f]or the purposes of this Act”); cf. Romero-Ochoa v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1328, 1330-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7) was constitutional in the context of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1), 1229c(b)(1)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71254

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.