Case Name: Julio Cesar MORENO-HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 422 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 09-72427
Parties: Julio Cesar MORENO-HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Julio Cesar MORENO-HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72427.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 21, 2011.
Julio Cesar Moreno Heredia, Hawthorne, CA, pro se.
Oil, Stefanie A. Svoren, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Julio Cesar Moreno-Heredia, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his third 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. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Heredia's third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed nearly five years after the BIA's final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Moreno Heredia failed to establish changed circumstances in Peru to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical bar for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did hot have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided'by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.