Case Name: Octavio Mendez CORTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-29
Citations: 216 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 05-72702
Parties: Octavio Mendez CORTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Octavio Mendez CORTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72702.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 29, 2006.
Octavio Mendez Cortes, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration, Lit., Surell Brady, U.S. Dept, of Justice Management Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Octavio Mendez Cortes, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely, because he did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Petitioner's reliance on Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2000), is misplaced. In that case, the 90-day time limit for motions to reopen did not apply because petitioner had been ordered deported before March 22, 1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.