Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0897-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Luis Rebolledo RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Jose Luis Rebolledo Rodriguez, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
    
      OIL, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Rebolledo Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his fourth motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

Petitioner sought to reopen based on new evidence to establish the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives by providing evidence that his United States citizen son Angel has developed severe asthma and a speech impairment, and petitioner has a newborn United States citizen child.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s fourth motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, and the motion did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) — (3). Because the motion is time and numerically barred, we deny the petition for review, and we need not address petitioner’s remaining challenge.

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