Luis Mauricio Aguilar Mejia v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS MAURICIO AGUILAR MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73185
Agency No. A094-312-424
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Luis Mauricio Aguilar Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
FILED
DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguilar Mejia’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than six years after his final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), he has not demonstrated that he
warrants equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (requiring due diligence for equitable tolling), and he
failed to present sufficient evidence of changed country conditions in El Salvador
to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[E]ven if a change in personal circumstances is sufficient to file a successive
asylum petition under [8 U.S.C.] § 1158(a)(2)(D), a change in country conditions
must still be demonstrated if the accompanying motion to reopen is untimely.”).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Aguilar Mejia’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73185 2

-- 2 of 2 --