FROYLAN ALVARADO SANCHEZ and ENRIQUETTA PANALOSA AGUIERRE v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FROYLAN ALVARADO SANCHEZ and
ENRIQUETTA PANALOSA
AGUIERRE,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71527
Agency Nos. A095-445-182
A070-750-936
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.
Froylan Alvarado Sanchez and Enriquetta Panalosa Aguierre, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
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 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where they filed the motion more than 10 years after their final
order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioners failed to show the due
diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien
who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or
error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such
circumstances), and failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions in
Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 998-990 (evidence must be
“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening, and new evidence lacked
materiality).
The BIA provided a reasoned explanation for denying the motion to reopen,
and petitioners’ contentions that the BIA violated due process by failing to
consider evidence or facts or ignored relevant precedent is unpersuasive. See
15-71527 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA adequately considered the evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-
96 (9th Cir. 2000) (for an alien to prevail on such a due process claim, the alien
must overcome presumption that agency reviewed all evidence).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-71527 3

-- 3 of 3 --