Case ID: f-appx_593/html/0738-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Daniel MACEDO-CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-74108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-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: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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 Daniel Macedo-Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Macedo-Campos’s untimely motion to reopen because he did not establish materially changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence lacked materiality because it simply recounted “generalized conditions” in country that did not show petitioner’s situation was “appreciably different from the dangers faced by her fellow citizens”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

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