Victor Manuel Ruelas Preciado v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL RUELAS
PRECIADO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72034
Agency No. A096-063-484
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Ruelas Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

jlf/Inventory 08-72034 2
motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of
removal, and alleging changed country conditions and seeking relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
to reopen because petitioner’s motion was untimely filed and failed to meet an
exception to the time limits on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Petitioner’s claim for protection under CAT failed to present changed country
conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner or his circumstances, and
therefore petitioner failed to meet his burden of presenting a prima facie CAT
claim to support reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Kamalthas v. INS, 251
F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, the BIA did not err in concluding
that petitioner’s failure to voluntarily depart within the departure period rendered
him ineligible for cancellation relief for a period of ten years. See Barroso v.
Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2005)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --