UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ADALI NOLBERTO LOPEZ, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 13-9522 (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , BALDOCK , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

Adali Nolberto Lopez, a native and citi zen of Guatemala, il legally entered the United States in 1993. The following year he applied for asylum. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration App eals concluded that he had not shown persecution on account of a statutorily protect ed ground and denied his application. The proceedings c oncluded in 1997.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 10, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Thirteen years later, in 2010, Mr. Lopez moved to reopen the deportation proceedings on the basis of in effective assistance of coun sel. The BIA dismissed the motion as untimely and this court deni ed Mr. Lopez’s petition for review. Lopez v. Holder , 495 F. App’x 889 (10th Cir. 2012). Dissatisfied but undeterre d Mr. Lopez filed a second pro se motion to reopen his case with the BIA. The BIA conc luded that Mr. Lopez’s motion was both untimely and “number barred” because only a si ngle motion to reopen may be filed under applicable law. The Board furthe r noted that Mr. Lopez’s new evidence is insufficient to support his claim for relief. It is this ruli ng that we are now asked to review. We may review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen only for an abuse of discretion. Infanzon v. Ashcroft , 386 F.3d 1359, 1362 (10th Cir. 2004). “The BIA abuses its discretion when its decision prov ides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established po licies, is devoid of any r easoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this appeal Mr. Lopez argues that the Board didn’t sufficiently consider the new information he provided in his motion, but he fails to address the Board’s primary holding that his motion was untim ely and number barred. Mr. Lopez’s failure in his brief before us to addre ss the Board’s primary holding requires us to deny his petition for review. See, e.g. , Iliev v. Holder , 613 F.3d 1019, 1026 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998).- 3 - Neither, in any event, do we see how Mr . Lopez could successfully overcome the Board’s primary holding even if he had tried. In general, an a lien may file only one motion to reopen, which must be filed w ithin 90 days of the final administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2 ). Here, Mr. Lopez’s second motion was filed more than a decad e after the Board’s 1997 decision. To be sure, an exception to the time bar exists if th e motion to reopen is based on proof of changed country conditions and “such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been disc overed or presented at the previous proceeding.” Wei v. Mukasey , 545 F.3d 1248, 1254 (10t h Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have not yet decided whether changed country conditions are also an excep tion to the number bar. See id. at 1254 n.2. But even if the exception applies to both restrictions, Mr. Lopez has failed to explain how he might satisfy it. Before the Board he simply proffered a copy of his original asylum application with two reports about human rights in Guatemala without explaining what’s new or why it would not have been known earlier. In th ese circumstances, we cannot say the Board committed any abuse of discretion in applying the time or number bar. To the extent Mr. Lopez se parately intimates that in effective assistance of counsel supplies another exception to the time and number bar, he has not addressed the requirements necessary to make out su ch a claim nor “attemp t[ed] to show how- 4 - he met them.” See Lopez , 495 F. App’x at 891; see also Mickeviciute v. INS , 327 F.3d 1159, 1161 n.2 (10th Cir. 2003). The petition for review is denied. Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge