Chirinkina

Chirinkina v. Holder

Good Law
473 F. App'x 656
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 23, 2012Nos. 08-75207, 09-72551California321 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lilia Chirinkina, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings (No. 08-75207), and denying her motion to reconsider (No. 09-72551). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the consolidated petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chirinkina’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly one-and-a-half years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Chirinkina failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in Uzbekistan to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir.2010); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.