Case Name: Juan MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-07
Citations: 609 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 13-70833
Parties: Juan MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 467–467

Head Matter:
Juan MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70833.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed July 7, 2015.
William J. Baker, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, OIL, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, 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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Juan Miranda-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 Miranda-Sanchez's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than one year after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Miranda-Sanchez did not establish materially changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence did not establish materially changed country conditions since petitioner's prior hearing). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Miranda-Sanchez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.