Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0747-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberto Cardenas CABALLERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 11-73353, 12-73597.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 20, 2014.
    Nikhil M. Shah, I, Esquire, General, Law Offices of Nikhil M. Shah, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
    Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Cardenas Caballero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his second (petition No. 11-73353) and third (petition No. 12-73597) motions 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cardenas Caballero’s second and third motions to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motions were filed more than 13 and 14 years, respectively, after the final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Cardenas Caballero failed to establish changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing”).

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