Gumercindo Everisario Cuchilla-Ventura 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GUMERCINDO EVERISARIO
CUCHILLA-VENTURA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73798
Agency No. A079-417-450
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.
Gumercindo Everisario Cuchilla-Ventura, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, 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
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73798 2
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 the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cuchilla-Ventura’s untimely
motion to reopen where Cuchilla-Ventura did not show that his newly submitted
evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(1), (c)(3)(ii);
Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (evidence that is
available or capable of being discovered at time of hearing cannot serve as basis
for motion to reopen). Further, Cuchilla-Ventura does not raise any challenge to
the BIA’s dispositive finding that his evidence did not address the issue of changed
circumstances.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --