FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALFREDO ANDRADE- No. 08-71444
POCASANGRE,
Agency No. A029-255-476
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2011 **
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Andrade-Pocasangre petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his
motion to reopen as untimely. We deny the petition.
*
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 must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order
of removal or deportation. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). This time limit does not apply
where an alien seeks reopening to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or
protection under Convention Against Torture, and is based on “changed country
conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has
been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have
been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
Petitioner does not qualify for this exception for at least two reasons.
Petitioner fails to allege facts that would place him within a protected social group.
See Grava v. I.N.S., 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Purely personal
retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”); Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Without evidence of an
actual political opinion or motive in [petitioner’s] or the gang’s actions, his claim
fails.”). Moreover, Petitioner has alleged only changed personal circumstances, not
changed country circumstances. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.
2007) (holding that a “self-induced change in personal circumstances” does not
qualify as a change in country circumstances). The BIA therefore did not abuse its
discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See Rodriguez-Lariz v.
2
I.N.S., 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[The Ninth Circuit] reviews the
BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.”).
Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
3