Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0769-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jorge Alberto CRUZ-PINEDA, AKA Ricardo Molina-Rosales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72832
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 31, 2017
    Douglas Jalaie, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Alberto Cruz-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 Cruz-Pineda’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than fifteen years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Cruz-Pineda failed to provide evidence of a material change in circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.