FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN PABLO VELASQUEZ, No. 07-74972
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-844-156
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Pablo Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his untimely
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 and de
*
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).
novo questions of law. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez’ motion to reopen
to apply for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) because
he did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate material changed
circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief
in order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances).
We reject Velasquez’ contentions that the BIA applied improper standards
of law in denying his motion to reopen because they are not supported by the
record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74972