Cesar Antonio Hernandez- Mejia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-
MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71123
Agency No. A096-069-687
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Antonio Hernandez-Mejia, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d
FILED
JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71123 2
770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernanedez-Mejia’s motion
to reopen as untimely where his motion was filed almost two years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to present sufficient evidence
of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Mejia’s contentions regarding
the BIA’s March 10, 2006 and November 21, 2007 orders, because this petition for
review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --