United States v. 2020-03-11 | 14-73911 | PEDRO MENDIOLA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO RICARDO MENDIOLA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73911

Agency No. A070-037-978

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Ricardo Mendiola, a native of the Philippines, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 reopen. Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due

*
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

MAR 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 14-73911
process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendiola’s motion to
reopen as untimely where he filed it more than five years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to demonstrate materially
changed country conditions in the Philippines to qualify for an exception to the
time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 987-91 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening). We reject Mendiola’s contentions that the BIA did not properly
evaluate all of his evidence and failed to sufficiently explain its decision. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision).
We reject Mendiola’s contention that the BIA violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
We reject as unsupported by the record Mendiola’s contentions as to
streamlining and numerical filing limitations because the BIA did not streamline
his case or find that his motion to reopen was numerically barred.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.