Case Name: Garfield GREENWOOD, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 656 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 14-72731
Parties: Garfield GREENWOOD, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 336–336

Head Matter:
Garfield GREENWOOD, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72731
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 1, 2016
Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner
Melissa Katherine Lott, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Garfield Greenwood, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Greenwood's motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it three years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Jamaica to qualify for an exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-990 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.