NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SELVIN FLORIAN, AKA Selvin Florian No. 14-70705
Najarro,
Agency No. A075-674-631
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Selvin Florian, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.
*
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).
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Florian’s untimely motion
to reopen because Florian failed to establish materially 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 Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (requiring movant to
produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of
nationality had changed).
We lack jurisdiction to review Florian’s challenge to the agency’s denial of
his underlying claims for relief because this petition is not timely as to that order.
See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (the deadline for filing a petition for
review from a final order of removal is “mandatory and jurisdictional”); Toufighi,
538 F.3d at 995 (the court lacked jurisdiction to review underlying order of
removal, where alien did not seek timely review of that order, and instead filed
petition for review from the denial of a subsequent motion to reopen).
Finally, we deny Florian’s opposed motion to remand and deny as moot
Florian’s motion to suspend the briefing schedule and stay proceedings pending the
resolution of his motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-70705