Case Name: Guillermo GOMEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-01
Citations: 540 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 12-72260
Parties: Guillermo GOMEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 747–748

Head Matter:
Guillermo GOMEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72260.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2018.
Filed Oct. 1, 2013.
Guillermo Gomez-Ruiz, Indio, CA, pro se.
Yedidya Cohen, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lindsay Williams Zim-liki, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Guillermo Gomez-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absen-tia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Ruiz's motion to reopen for failure to show lack of notice where the record establishes proper service of the Order to Show Cause and the Notice of Hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l), (a)(2)(B) (repealed 1996).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Ruiz's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.28(b)(1), and Gomez-Ruiz failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.