Case Name: Silvestre SARAT-AGUSTIN, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-07
Citations: 623 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 15-60219
Parties: Silvestre SARAT-AGUSTIN, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
Silvestre SARAT-AGUSTIN, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-60219
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 7, 2015.
Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Silvestre Sarat-Agustin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005).
Sarat-Agustin received proper notice of the removal hearing; he personally received the Notice to Appear, which was written in English and contained notice of the removal healing, and was orally advised of the hearing in a language that he understood. Accordingly, he had to file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the date of entry of his order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (b)(4)(h). He failed to do so and failed to establish changed country conditions in Guatemala that would permit him to file an untimely motion to reopen. See § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). He has therefore failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion to reopen. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303-04.
Sarat-Agustin's petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not- be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.