NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAUL AMAYA

- MEJIA, AKA Saul Antonio Amaya,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No s
. 17

- 71489 19

- 70877

Agency No. A044

- 612

- 046

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Saul Amaya

- Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) ord er denying his motion to reopen (petition No. 17

- 71489) and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider and terminate proceedin gs (petition No. 19

- 70877). We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70877

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen

or to reconsider

. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 17

- 71489, t he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amaya

- Mejia ’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than 11
months after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
where Amaya

- Mejia did not establish changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 987

- 90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” t o warrant reopening) ; Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). In addition, t he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amaya

- Mejia ’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Amaya

- Mejia
failed to show he had been prejudice d by the performance of former counsel. See
Mohammed , 400 F.3d at 793

- 94 (prejudic e results when “the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) ). We reject as unsupported by the record Amaya

- Mejia’s contentions that the3 19

- 70877

BIA applied i ncorrect legal standards and ignored evidence. As to petition No. 19

- 70877, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amaya

- Meija’s motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings. See Karingithi v.
Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160

- 62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). Thus, the government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No.
31 ) is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton , 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard). Amaya

- Mejia ’ s opposed motion to hold the se petition s for review in
abe yance (Docket Entry No. 29 ) is denied.
PETITION S FOR REVIEW DENIED.