Case Name: Victor Manuel Guardado RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-26
Citations: 639 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 14-70650
Parties: Victor Manuel Guardado RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 458–458

Head Matter:
Victor Manuel Guardado RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70650.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 26, 2016.
Nikhil M. Shah', I, Esquire, General, Law Offices of Nikhil M. Shah, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
Nicole Thomas-Dorris, 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: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Victor Manuel Guardado Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second 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 Guardado Rodriguez's motion to reopen because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Guardado Rodriguez failed to submit material evidence of changes 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 987-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening). We reject his contentions that the BIA's analysis was improper or insufficient. See Najmabadi 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.