Winston Manuel Carolino Layumas 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WINSTON MANUEL CAROLINO
LAYUMAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73330
Agency No. A070-780-971
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Winston Manuel Carolino Layumas, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73330 2
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA dismissed Layumas’s appeal after finding his argument did not
show the IJ erred in determining he failed to establish a material change in
circumstances in the Philippines sufficient to excuse an untimely motion to reopen.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion. See id. at 986-90
(stating court defers to BIA’s exercise of discretion unless arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law, and upholding finding petitioner failed to establish changed
country conditions). We reject Layumas’s contention that the BIA’s review was
insufficient.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Layumas’s contentions regarding
disfavored group analysis because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --