Case ID: f-appx_546/html/0718-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fredy Oswaldo VILLANUEVA-MORAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71442.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2013.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Todd J. Cochran, OIL, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fredy Oswaldo Villanueva-Moran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second 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. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Villanueva-Moran’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over three years after the agency’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Villanueva-Mor-an failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996.

We lack jurisdiction to review Villa-nueva-Moran’s contentions related to humanitarian asylum and equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his asylum claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen under its sua sponte authority. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011). We reject Villanueva-Mor-an’s contentions that the BIA ignored his change-of-law arguments and insufficiently explained its reasoning.

Finally, we deny Villanueva-Moran’s request for attorney fees.

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.