Case Name: Mainor Amilcar MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-19
Citations: 649 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 14-73658
Parties: Mainor Amilcar MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 366–367

Head Matter:
Mainor Amilcar MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73658.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 19, 2016.
Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices Of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Dawn S. Conrad, 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: 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
Mainor Amilcar Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marroquin's second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where the motion was filed five years after the agency's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Marroquin failed to establish changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Marroquin's contentions that the BIA improperly evaluated evidence or his affidavit, failed to consider factors, or relied upon speculation in denying his motion are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (The agency "does not have to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent that Marroquin contends that the denial of his motion to reopen constitutes a due process violation, this claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
To the extent Marroquin challenges the agency's finding of deportability during his 2007 proceedings or the BIA's 2012 decision denying his first motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because this petition for review is not timely as to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Marroquin's remaining contentions regarding his eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R, 36-3.