Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reynaldo Enrique JIMENEZ-MORATAYA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70664
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED June 24, 2016
    Reynaldo Enrique Jimenez-Morataya, Los Angeles, CA, Pro Se.
    Drew Brinkman, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Reynaldo Enrique Jimenez-Morataya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jimenez-Morataya’s motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than a year after the BIA’s final order, and Jimenez-Morataya failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (BIA’s determination that petitioner did not establish material changed country conditions was not “arbitrary, irrational, or eontraiy to law”).

To the extent Jimenez-Morataya contends he established eligibility for relief, we do not reach this contention in light of our disposition.

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