Ricardo Figueroa Lemus v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO FIGUEROA LEMUS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71063
Agency No. A200-150-214
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Figueroa Lemus, 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, Najmabadi v.
* 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
AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71063
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Figueroa Lemus’s motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Figueroa Lemus failed to demonstrate
materially changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for an exception to the
time limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner
failed to introduce material evidence); see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
965-66 (9th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where
petitioner did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --