Case ID: f-appx_229/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos Noe RAMIREZ SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72332.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 27, 2007.
    Carlos Noe Ramirez Salazar, Oakhurts, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle G. Latour Fax, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Surell Brady, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Noe Ramirez Salazar seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Ramirez Salazar’s motion to reopen to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture because it was filed nearly one year after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

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