Case Name: Cesar Antonio HERNANDEZ-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-12
Citations: 386 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 08-71123
Parties: Cesar Antonio HERNANDEZ-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 721–721

Head Matter:
Cesar Antonio HERNANDEZ-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71123.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 12, 2010.
Cesar Antonio Hernandez-Mejia, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
OIL, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Rosanne Perry, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Cesar Antonio Hernandez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hemandez-Mejia's motion to reopen as untimely where his motion was filed almost two years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Mejia's contentions regarding the BIA's March 10, 2006 and November 21, 2007 orders, because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.