FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISIDRO JUAN FRANCISCO, No. 14-71016
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-636-716
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Isidro Juan Francisco, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juan Francisco’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than two years after the
BIA’s final order, and Juan Francisco failed to establish materially changed
country conditions in Guatemala based on a disfavored group and imputed political
opinion claim to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (to prevail on a motion to
reopen based on changed country conditions, applicant must produce material
evidence of changed country conditions that establishes prima facie eligibility for
the relief sought).
We reject Juan Francisco’s contentions that the BIA erred or acted arbitrarily
in stating that motions to reopen are disfavored, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 993
(observing that motions to reopen are disfavored), or that it misconstrued the
purpose of his motion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Juan Francisco’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, failed to
sufficiently address his asylum and withholding of removal claims, and failed to
address at all his Convention Against Torture claim, are unsupported by the record.
See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA need not
2 14-71016
“write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Finally, we deny Juan Francisco’s request for judicial notice of extra-record
information discussed in his opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial
review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371
(9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71016