Case Name: Josue Estrada CALVILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-20
Citations: 530 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 11-71746
Parties: Josue Estrada CALVILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Josue Estrada CALVILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71746.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Bernard Joseph, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Josué Estrada Calvillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Calvillo's challenges to the original agency proceedings in 1995 because this petition is not timely as to those proceedings. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 557 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Calvillo's untimely motion to reopen because he did not establish changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.