Case Name: Carlos CAP, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 653 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 15-70584
Parties: Carlos CAP, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
Carlos CAP, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70584
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 23, 2016
Carlos Cap, Pro Se
Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington,. DC, Neelam. Ihsanullah, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Cap, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Cap's motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than a year after his final administrative order of removal, and Cap failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 998-990 (new evidence lacked materiality).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.