FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK ALFONSO ESCOBAR, No. 08-73629
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-707-977
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Erick Alfonso Escobar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen deportation 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 the
*
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).
BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. 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 Escobar’s motion to reopen
as untimely because Escobar filed the motion over two years after the BIA’s final
administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Escobar failed to
establish changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991 (substantial evidence supported BIA’s conclusion that
evidence submitted with motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the
evidence presented at the original hearing).
We lack jurisdiction to review Escobar’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Puga v. Chertoff,
488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73629