Case Name: Reynaldo Enrique JIMENEZ-MORATAYA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-24
Citations: 667 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 13-70664
Parties: Reynaldo Enrique JIMENEZ-MORATAYA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 282–282

Head Matter:
Reynaldo Enrique JIMENEZ-MORATAYA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70664
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2016
FILED June 24, 2016
Reynaldo Enrique Jimenez-Morataya, Los Angeles, CA, Pro Se.
Drew Brinkman, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Reynaldo Enrique Jimenez-Morataya, 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. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jimenez-Morataya's motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than a year after the BIA's final order, and Jimenez-Morataya failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (BIA's determination that petitioner did not establish material changed country conditions was not "arbitrary, irrational, or eontraiy to law").
To the extent Jimenez-Morataya contends he established eligibility for relief, we do not reach this contention in light of our disposition.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and .is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.