Paola Fidelia Gutierrez- Gonzales v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAOLA FIDELIA GUTIERREZ-
GONZALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71400
Agency No. A070-808-758
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Paola Fidelia Gutierrez-Gonzales, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71400 2
motion to reconsider or to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez-Gonzales’s
motion to reconsider where she failed to allege any error of law or fact in the BIA’s
underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Gutierrez-Gonzales’s
contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision is
not persuasive. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal
quotations omitted).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez-Gonzales’s
motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gutierrez-Gonzales failed to
present sufficient evidence to qualify for any of the regulatory exceptions to the
time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --