Victor Manuel Guardado Rodriguez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL GUARDADO
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70650
Agency No. A097-361-112
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Guardado Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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).
FILED
APR 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70650
reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guardado Rodriguez’s
motion to reopen because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Guardado Rodriguez failed to submit material evidence of
changes in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number
limitations for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening). We reject his contentions that the BIA’s analysis was improper or
insufficient. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered
evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --