NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

NELSON YUDINI GUADRON ,

Petitioner ,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent

. No. 16

- 72894 Agency No. A094

- 178

- 309

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2018 ** Pasadena, California
Before: Mc KEOWN and WARDLAW , Circuit Judges, and DONATO, *** District Judge.
Nelson Yudini Guadron , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) , which d enied

* 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).

*** The Honorable James Donato, United Sta tes District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

his motion to reopen his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) , and we deny the petition

. Guadron’s motion to reopen wa s subject to a 90

- day deadline, s ee 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Go v. Holder , 744 F.3d 604 , 607

– 09 (9th Cir. 2014), but was not
filed until almost three years after the Board’s decision. To excuse this
untimeli ness, Guadron seeks to rely on the exception in 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii), which provides that “[t]here is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen” if the motion is “based on changed country conditions arising in
the co untry of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if
such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” See also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
The Board conclud ed that Guadron “has not demonstrated a change in country conditions material to his claim for relief” and that he “has not established a material change in conditions in El Salvador,” and consequently denied Guadron’s motion to reopen as “untimely.” We r eview thi s denial for abuse of discretion, and may reverse the Board’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Go , 744 F.3d at 609 (quoting Perez v. Mukasey , 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008 )).3

We conclude that t he Board did not abuse its discretion. The record
indicate s that the Board properly considered all pertinent factors, both favorable and unfavorable, in determining whether to grant the motion. I t properly
concluded within the bounds of its discretion th at the newly submitted evidence showed that ongoing and substantially similar conditions of violence related to

gangs had existed at the time of the applicant’s hearing. With respect to police
involvement in , and the government’s awareness and condoning o f , extrajudicial killing of gang members in El Salvador, the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence was not definitive. Finally, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Guadron had not alleged receiving any new, specific
threats to him as an individual

. T he Board consequently acted within the “broad discretion” it has in deciding a motion to reopen

. Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). While b oth sides have briefed at some length Guadron’s additional arguments about his prima facie eligibil ity for withholding of removal and his
counsel’s failure to challenge the Immigration Judge’s prior conclusion that
Guadron is in eligible for that relief because he was convicted of a “particularly
seriou s crime, ” we nee d not, and decline to, reach tho se arguments. See Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 997 (9th Cir. 2008) ( concluding that the Board may deny a motion to reopen for failin g to meet any of four burdens , which include prima facie4

eligibility, need to produce evidence of changed conditions , and that the evidence is “material”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.