Case Name: Jorge Israel SILVA SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-31
Citations: 394 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 08-71113
Parties: Jorge Israel SILVA SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Jorge Israel SILVA SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
Jorge Israel Silva Salazar, Santa Barbara, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, 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
Jorge Israel Silva Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Silva Salazar's second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred because the successive motion was filed nearly one year after the BIA's September 19, 2006, order dismissing his underlying appeal, and Silva Salazar failed to demonstrate that he qualified for an exception to the time or number limits. See-8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.