Guillermo Gomez-Ruiz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GUILLERMO GOMEZ-RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72260
Agency No. A073-967-993
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Gomez-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings held in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-72260 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Ruiz’s motion to
reopen for failure to show lack of notice where the record establishes proper
service of the Order to Show Cause and the Notice of Hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252b(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) (repealed 1996).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Ruiz’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after his
removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Gomez-Ruiz failed
to demonstrate a material change in country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); see
also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --