Pascual Aouilino Gayoso Bernal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PASCUAL AOUILINO GAYOSO
BERNAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73406
Agency No. A079-538-013
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Pascual Aoulino Gayoso-Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order denying his
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to
reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the Convention
Against Torture as untimely because he did not file the motion within 90 days of
the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), he failed to
demonstrate material changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), and he did
not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility
for relief); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that Mexican aliens returning home from the United States did not qualify
as a cognizable social group for purposes of asylum or withholding of removal).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's June 7, 2005, order dismissing
petitioner’s direct appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his
application for cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not
timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 3 --

-- 3 of 3 --