Court Opinion

ID: 3215454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-21 20:01:15.597791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:38.276319
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUN 21 2016
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 SANTIAGO VEGA-RUIZ,                               No.     14-73214

              Petitioner,                          Agency No. A070-639-636

    v.
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
 LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

              Respondent.

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

                               Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before:        BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

         Santiago Vega-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi

         *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
         **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vega-Ruiz’s motion to

reopen as untimely, where Vega-Ruiz filed it more than two years after the final

order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he did not establish changed

circumstances in Guatemala as to overcome the time limitation 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).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                  14-73214