Case Name: Angel Alex CUN-LUC, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-25
Citations: 637 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 15-1299
Parties: Angel Alex CUN-LUC, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Angel Alex CUN-LUC, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 15-1299.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2016.
Filed: Feb. 25, 2016.
Allan Harvey Bell, Allan H. Bell & Associates, Kansas City, MO, for Petitioner.
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Allison Frayer, Melissa Katherine Lott, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Angel Alex Cun-Luc petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen proceedings. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion, see Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing for abuse of discretion denial of motion to reopen); Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 931, 936 (8th Cir.2010) (reviewing BIA's decision regarding changed country conditions under highly deferential abuse of discretion standard). The BIA did not err in determining that Cun-Luc's second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (generally party may file one motion to reopen proceedings; motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of date order of removal becomes administratively final); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (same). While there is a changed-country-eonditions exception to the filing deadline and numerical limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(A), (C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-(ii), 1003.23(b)(4)(i), we agree with the BIA that Cun-Luc failed to show he qualified for the exception, see Zhong Qin Zheng v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893, 895-96 (8th Cir.2008) (discussing exception). The petition for review is denied.