Case Name: Jorge Alberto CRUZ-PINEDA, AKA Ricardo Molina-Rosales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-31
Citations: 699 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 14-72832
Parties: Jorge Alberto CRUZ-PINEDA, AKA Ricardo Molina-Rosales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 769–769

Head Matter:
Jorge Alberto CRUZ-PINEDA, AKA Ricardo Molina-Rosales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72832
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 31, 2017
Douglas Jalaie, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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 Alberto Cruz-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 Cruz-Pineda's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than fifteen years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Cruz-Pineda failed to provide evidence of a material change in circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.