Case ID: f-appx_605/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Melvin Estuardo Moraga ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 21, 2015.
    Rosana Cheung, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melvin Estuardo Moraga Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moraga Alvarez’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mora-ga Alvarez failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception, to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence must Be material to warrant reopening). The record does not support Moraga Alvarez’s contentions that the BIA ignored his background evidence and applied an improper burden of proof, and we reject Moraga Alvarez’s contentions that the BIA failed to address his arguments adequately on appeal.

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