TISNADO v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Yaneth Tisnado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen and to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials attached to Tisnado’s opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tisnado’s motion to reopen, because she failed to offer evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at Tisnado’s former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the evidentiary requirements for a motion to reopen).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Tisnado’s motion to reconsider her claims, because she failed to identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the standard for a motion to reconsider).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.