FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAULINO LUIS MARTINEZ-MENA, No. 13-72351
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-617-745
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Paulino Luis Martinez-Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse 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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Mena’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Martinez-Mena failed to present material evidence of
changed conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing
deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Martinez-Mena’s contentions that the BIA failed to discuss the positive
aspects of the evidence he submitted or adequately explain its decision are not
supported. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“What is required is merely that [the
BIA] 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)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Martinez-Mena’s remaining
contentions regarding whether he has demonstrated prima facie eligibility for
relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72351