Case Name: Felipe AYALA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 594 F. App'x 351
Docket Number: No. 10-70408
Parties: Felipe AYALA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 351–351

Head Matter:
Felipe AYALA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70408.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
Felipe Ayala-Alvarado, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Virginia Lum, Oil, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Felipe Ayala-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Mexieo, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 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 Ayala-Alvarado's untimely and number-barred motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), because he failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (a petitioner's evidence lacks the required materiality where it simply recounts generalized conditions that fail to demonstrate "that her predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by her fellow citizens").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.