Case ID: f-appx_286/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julio Cesar MORENO HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70567.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2008.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2008.
    Julio Cesar Moreno Heredia, Hawthorne, CA, for pro se.
    Oil, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julio Cesar Moreno Heredia, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribar-ria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno Heredia’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Moreno Here-dia failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Peru to qualify him for the regulatory exception to the numerical bar for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Moreno Heredia’s first motion to reopen because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

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