Pedro Juarez-Lorenzo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO JUAREZ-LORENZO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73383
Agency No. A095-761-112
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Juarez-Lorenzo, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73383
denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Lorenzo’s third
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed six years after
his order of removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2), and he has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception
applies, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3), 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen to
rescind an in absentia deportation order may be filed at any time if the alien
demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice of the hearing).
Contrary to Juarez-Lorenzo’s contention, the BIA’s decision in Matter of M-
S-, concerning aliens who do not receive oral warnings of the consequences of
failing to appear, does not provide an independent basis for untimely reopening of
his removal proceedings to apply for relief from removal. 22 I. & N. Dec. 349,
356-7 (BIA 1998) (filing deadline applies to motions to reopen based on lack of
oral notice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --