22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c9,MEMORANDUM Esperanza Ruvalcaba-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruvaleaba-Sandoval’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over one year after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Ruvalcaba-Sandoval failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances). Ruvaleaba-Sandoval’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard and did not consider the facts are belied by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4fb,

MEMORANDUM

Esperanza Ruvalcaba-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruvaleaba-Sandoval’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over one year after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Ruvalcaba-Sandoval failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances).

Ruvaleaba-Sandoval’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard and did not consider the facts are belied by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.