United States v. 2020-02-10 | 19-70536 | PABLO PIRIR-CHITAY V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PABLO EDWIN PIRIR-CHITAY,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70536

Agency No. A071-583-933

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Edwin Pirir-Chitay, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

*
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).
FILED

FEB 10 2020

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

2 19-70536
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pirir-Chitay’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the second motion to reopen was
filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and where Pirir-Chitay failed to demonstrate a material change in country
conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception to the time and number
limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence of
general country conditions was not material to petitioner’s claim).
To the extent Pirir-Chitay contends that he fears harm on account of his
family membership or his mother’s opposition to gangs, we lack jurisdiction to
consider these contentions because Pirir-Chitay failed to present them to the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.