Mayra Cardenas Mendez v. Loretta E. Lynch

609 F. App'x 420
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 2015
Docket12-70242
StatusUnpublished

This text of 609 F. App'x 420 (Mayra Cardenas Mendez v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mayra Cardenas Mendez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 609 F. App'x 420 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mayra Graciela Cardenas Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

We grant Cardenas Mendez’s motion to accept her late-filed reply brief.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cardenas Mendez’s untimely and number-barred motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986; see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members *421 bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Cardenas Mendez’s contention that the BIA did not give full and fair consideration to all the evidence does not overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed all of the evidence she presented. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000). In light of our conclusions, we need not reach Cardenas Mendez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zetino v. Holder
622 F.3d 1007 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Najmabadi v. Holder
597 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
609 F. App'x 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayra-cardenas-mendez-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.