Gomez
Gomez v. Holder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Gabriela Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
*651 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed over a year and a half after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Gomez failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical bar for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen as to her cancellation…