Maria Cornejo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA CORNEJO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71050
Agency No. A097-355-058
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Cornejo, 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
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71050 2
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cornejo’s timely motion to
reopen where Cornejo failed to demonstrate that the administrative procedures
manual excerpt and the employment authorization card were not discoverable and
could not have been presented to the immigration judge. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1); Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
The BIA did not err in not reconsidering its denial of withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) because Cornejo did not
raise these arguments in her motion.
In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Cornejo’s arguments regarding
her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --