N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AUGUSTO M AR TINEZ, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70297 Age n c y No. A070-064-239 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Augusto M artine z , a

native and c itiz e n of Gua t e m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his motion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n . Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C i r. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in dism issing M artine z ’ s a

ppe a l of the IJ’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly whe re it wa s file d ove r 90 da y s a fte r the a ge nc y ’ s fina l orde r of re m o va l, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), an d M artine z fa ile d to e sta

blish c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s in Gua

t e m a la to qua lify

for the re gula tory e xc e p tion to the

tim e lim ita

tion, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th C ir. 2010) (e vide n c e subm itte d with m otion to re o pe n m

u st be qua lita

tive ly diffe re nt from

the e vide n c e pre s e nte d at the origina l he aring). Furthe r, to thee xte nt the B IA c onstrue d M artine z ’ s a ppe a l a s a ne w m otion to re ope n the IJ’ s de c ision ba se d on e vide nc e not pre se nte d to theIJ, the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing them otion be c a use M artine z ’ s ne w doc um e nts fa ile d to e sta

blish m ate ria l e vide nc e of c ha nge d c i rc um sta

nc e s in Gua

te m a la . Se e N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990 (holding tha

t e vide n c e pre se nte d with m o tion to re ope n wa s not m ate ria l be c a

use it m e re l y re c ounte d ge ne ra liz e d c onditions tha t fa ile d to de m onstra

te pe titione r’ s situa

tion wa s a

ppre c ia bly diffe re nt from

the da nge rs fa c e d by

he r fe llow c i tiz e ns).

1 2 - 7 0 2 9 7 2The B IA a lso did not a b use its disc re t ion in de ny ing M artine z ’ s m otion to re ope n whe re he fa i le d to c om

ply with the thre shold re quire m e nts of Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988), a nd the a l le ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e wa s not “pla in on thefa c e of the a dm inistra t ive re c ord.” Se e C

astillo-Pere

z v . IN S , 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th C ir. 2000). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 0 2 9 7 3