MARITZA IVONNE AVELAR, AKA Maritza Cruz v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARITZA IVONNE AVELAR, AKA
Maritza Cruz,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72540
Agency No. A088-968-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maritza Ivonne Avelar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72540
novo questions of law. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avelar’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where she filed the motion nearly two years after her final administrative
order of removal, and did not present sufficient evidence of materially changed
country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996 (9th Cir. 2008) (to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country
conditions, applicant must produce material evidence of changed country
conditions that establishes prima facie eligibility for the relief sought).
The record does not support Avelar’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider evidence submitted with her motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention);
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --