Case Name: Gumercindo Everisario CUCHILLA-VENTURA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-20
Citations: 510 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 10-73798
Parties: Gumercindo Everisario CUCHILLA-VENTURA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 510
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
Gumercindo Everisario CUCHILLA-VENTURA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 20, 2013.
Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Nancy Naseem Safavi, Trial, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial, 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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
Gumercindo Everisario Cuchilla-Ventu-ra, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. 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 Cuehilla-Ventura's untimely motion to reopen where Cuchilla-Ventura did not show that his newly submitted evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), (c)(3)(h); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (evidence that is available or capable of being discovered at time of hearing cannot serve as basis for motion to reopen). Further, Cuchilla-Ventura does not raise any challenge to the BIA's dis-positive finding that his evidence did not address the issue of changed circumstances.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.