Albertina Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTINA GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70624
Agency No. A098-652-147
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Albertina Gonzalez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida
* 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
MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70624
v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We previously concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s motion to reconsider; that she had not raised a
colorable due process claim; and that we lack jurisdiction to consider her
contention that her case warrants a favorable exercise of jurisdiction. See
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Holder, 540 F. App’x 663, 663 (9th Cir. 2013).
To the extent that Gonzalez-Gonzalez now challenges the agency’s decision
as to the merits of her application for asylum and other relief from removal, we
lack jurisdiction to review that decision because it was issued in February 2011,
and Gonzalez-Gonzalez did not file this petition for review until February 2015.
See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A petition for review must
be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. This
deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional.”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s
motion to reopen. As the BIA concluded, she did not introduce new evidence that
would likely have changed the outcome of her case. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Shin
v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or
reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70624
proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the
case.”) (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --