FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARINELL DEL MUNDO BELEN, No. 09-70019
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-969-322
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Marinell Del Mundo Belen, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
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).
a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Belen’s motion to reopen
as untimely where Belen filed it nearly twelve years after his removal order
became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Belen failed to submit material
evidence of changed circumstances in the Philippines that would excuse the late
filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942,
945 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring circumstances to have changed sufficiently that
petitioner now has a well-founded fear of persecution).
We agree with the agency that Belen is not eligible for “repapering” to apply
for cancellation of removal because he already had a final deportation order when
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) took
effect. See IIRIRA, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 309(c)(3), 110 Stat. 3009-626 (1996)
(authorizing the Attorney General to terminate proceedings pending at the time
IIRIRA took effect and to reinitiate proceedings under the new statutory scheme
for removal proceedings); see also Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1154-55 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Belen’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70019