Rolando Rodriguez Maltez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ MALTEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72610
Agency No. A077-008-690
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rolando Rodriguez Maltez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 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 review for abuse of
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72610 2
discretion the denial of a motion to 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 Rodriguez Maltez’s motion
to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over two-and-a-half years after
the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rodriguez
Maltez failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in Nicaragua to
qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --