Navarro-Pulido v. Gonzales
Navarro-Pulido v. Gonzales
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Maria Guadalupe Navarro-Pulido, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Navarro-Pulido’s motion to reconsider because it faded to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Because Navarro-Pulido sought to introduce new evidence in her motion to reconsider, the BIA also construed the motion as a second motion to reopen. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarro-Pulido’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) & (3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.