Sandra Yaneth Tisnado v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA YANETH TISNADO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72041
Agency No. A209-300-064
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Yaneth Tisnado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen and to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen and a
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72041
motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005),
and we deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials attached to Tisnado’s opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tisnado’s motion to reopen,
because she failed to offer evidence that was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at Tisnado’s former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1);
Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the evidentiary
requirements for a motion to reopen).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Tisnado’s motion to
reconsider her claims, because she failed to identify a legal or factual error in the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must
identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558
(9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the standard for a motion to reconsider).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --