Case Name: Rolando RODRIGUEZ MALTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Citations: 471 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 09-72610
Parties: Rolando RODRIGUEZ MALTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
Rolando RODRIGUEZ MALTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72610.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 6, 2012.
Tamiko Moore, Esquire, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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
Rolando Rodriguez Maltez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 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 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 Rodriguez Maltez's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over two-and-a-half years after the BIA's final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rodriguez Maltez failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in Nicaragua to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.