Mainor Amilcar Marroquin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAINOR AMILCAR MARROQUIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73658
Agency No. A072-544-152
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.
Mainor Amilcar Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
FILED
APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

constitutional claims. 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying Marroquin’s second motion
to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where the motion was filed five years
after the agency’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Marroquin failed to
establish changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Marroquin’s contentions that the BIA improperly evaluated evidence or his
affidavit, failed to consider factors, or relied upon speculation in denying his
motion are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (The
agency “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required
is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
not merely reacted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent that Marroquin contends that the denial of his motion to reopen
constitutes a due process violation, this claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process
claim).
14-73658 2

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent Marroquin challenges the agency’s finding of deportability
during his 2007 proceedings or the BIA’s 2012 decision denying his first motion to
reopen, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because this petition for
review is not timely as to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS,
514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Marroquin’s remaining
contentions regarding his eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-73658 3

-- 3 of 3 --