Case ID: f-appx_635/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ignacio Cedillo BARCENAS; Maria Del Carmen Estrada De Cedillo, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70174.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 3, 2016.
    Jeffrey Charles Gonzales, Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Gonzales, Portland, OR, for Petitioners.
    Sabatino F. Leo, Trial, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Départment of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Cedillo Barcenas and Maria Del Carmen Estrada De Cedillo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

- The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Mexico 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 v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (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”). Further, we reject petitioners’ contentions that the BIA failed to consider arguments or record evidence, see Najmabadi 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

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