Court Opinion

ID: 2781751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-24 22:01:00.642316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:40.008601
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FEB 24 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE DANIEL MACEDO-CAMPOS,                       No. 12-74108

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A078-988-682

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted February 17, 2015**

Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Jose Daniel Macedo-Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Macedo-Campos’s untimely

motion to reopen because he did not establish materially changed circumstances in

Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence lacked materiality

because it simply recounted “generalized conditions” in country that did not show

petitioner’s situation was “appreciably different from the dangers faced by her

fellow citizens”).

      We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          2                                      12-74108