Mishustina v Holder

Ninth Circuit

Mishustina v Holder

392 F. App'x 568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2010

Docket05-70513

StatusUnpublished

This text of 392 F. App'x 568 (Mishustina v Holder) 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

Mishustina v Holder, 392 F. App'x 568 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Victoria Mishustina petitions for review of a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen a proceeding in which she was denied asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3), and denying her motion for reinstatement of voluntary departure, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

A motion to reopen must ordinarily be filed within ninety days after the final decision of the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Mishustina’s was not. Mi-shustina seeks to avail herself of the exception to the timing requirement for cases in which there are “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). But to show changed circumstances, Mi-shustina points only to Russian laws that had already been enacted at the time of her hearing. These laws could have been discovered or presented at Mishustina’s original hearing. Her motion to reopen was untimely.

The BIA reviewed Mishustina’s motion to reopen under its established standard for untimely motions to reopen. In re Beckford, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1216 (BIA 2000). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by failing to reopen based upon the limited evidence that Mishustina presented. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2007).

*569 Mishustina’s petition for review also suggests that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate her voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure. Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004) (order).

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victoria Mishustina petitions for review of a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen a proceeding in which she was denied asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3), and denying her motion for reinstatement of voluntary departure, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

A motion to reopen must ordinarily be filed within ninety days after the final decision of the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Mishustina’s was not. Mi-shustina seeks to avail herself of the exception to the timing requirement for cases in which there are “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). But to show changed circumstances, Mi-shustina points only to Russian laws that had already been enacted at the time of her hearing. These laws could have been discovered or presented at Mishustina’s original hearing. Her motion to reopen was untimely.

The BIA reviewed Mishustina’s motion to reopen under its established standard for untimely motions to reopen. In re Beckford, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1216 (BIA 2000). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by failing to reopen based upon the limited evidence that Mishustina presented. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2007).

*569 Mishustina’s petition for review also suggests that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate her voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure. Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004) (order).

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F. App'x 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mishustina-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack