JOSE GUZMAN HERNANDEZ, AKA Allan Antonio Fernandez, AKA Allen Fernandez, AKA Jose… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUZMAN HERNANDEZ, AKA
Allan Antonio Fernandez, AKA Allen
Fernandez, AKA Jose Guzman Hernandez,
AKA Mario Selada Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72836
Agency No. A077-086-887
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guzman Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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
* 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
OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72836
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo due process
claims due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Guzman Hernandez’s
untimely motion to reopen where Guzman Hernandez failed to demonstrate
changed country conditions in Honduras to qualify for the regulatory exception to
the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (new evidence lacked materiality). We reject Guzman
Hernandez’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard in
evaluating changed country conditions as unsupported by the record.
The BIA did not err in denying Guzman Hernandez’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Guzman Hernandez failed to
establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of his former
counsels. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to
prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate
prejudice).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guzman Hernandez’s contention regarding

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72836
whether the BIA should have applied a “disfavored group” analysis because he
failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --