Case Name: Jorge Ildefonso CHAVEZ-HUAMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-27
Citations: 214 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 05-77089
Parties: Jorge Ildefonso CHAVEZ-HUAMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
Jorge Ildefonso CHAVEZ-HUAMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2006.
Filed Dec. 27, 2006.
Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Samuel A. Lambert, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Ildefonso Chavez-Huaman, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen so he could apply for asylum based on changed circumstances. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez-Huaman's motion to reopen because nothing in the 2004 State Department Country Report he submitted shows a material change of circumstances in Peru with regard to the Shining Path. Cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (holding "the critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.