Case Name: Salvador CASTRO-FUENTES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 643 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 14-72736
Parties: Salvador CASTRO-FUENTES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Salvador CASTRO-FUENTES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72736.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 22, 2016.
Salvador Castro-Fuentes, Pomona, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erica Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, 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
Salvador Castro-Fuentes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castro-Fuentes' motion to reopen because it was untimely and Castro-Fuentes did not establish materially changed circumstances in El Salvador affecting his eligibility for relief as to overcome the time limitation for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(83)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening). We reject Castro-Fuentes' contention that the BIA ignored evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.