Francisco Paul Rosales- Urquilla, a.k.a. P. Francisco Roseales Urquillo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO PAUL ROSALES-
URQUILLA, a.k.a. P. Francisco Roseales
Urquillo,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70085
Agency No. A0773-877-535
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Paul Rosales-Urquilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Rosales-Urquilla’s motion to take judicial notice of a receipt issued by
USCIS showing that he filed a petition for a U-Visa is denied.
The BIA found Rosales-Urquilla’s motion to reopen was untimely because
the motion was filed over thirteen years after the BIA’s final order and Rosales-
Urquilla failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in El
Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions
to reopen. Rosales-Urquilla raises a contention regarding relief under the
Convention Against Torture, but does not argue this issue is relevant to the BIA’s
denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. Nor does Rosales-Urquilla otherwise
challenge the BIA’s basis for denying his untimely motion to reopen. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny
the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70085 2

-- 2 of 2 --