NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO OSEGUERA-SALCE, AKA No. 14-71500
Sergio Salce Oseguera, AKA Sergio
Oseguera-Salch, AKA Sergio Osegura, Agency No. A092-029-292
AKA Sergio Salce Osegura, AKA Salce
Oseguera Sergio,
MEMORANDUM *
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Oseguera-Salce, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
of law. 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 Oseguera-Salce’s motion as
untimely, where the motion was filed more than one year after the agency’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (setting a 90-day filing deadline for motions to
reopen), and Oseguera-Salce failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico
to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Contrary to Oseguera-Salce’s contention, the BIA did not err in not
addressing Oseguera-Salce’s competency in the order under review, where the IJ
had addressed competency under Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I.&N. Dec. 474 (BIA
2011), during his underlying proceedings, the medical evidence submitted with the
motion did not show a material change since the IJ hearing, and the BIA
considered the new medical evidence as it related to his eligibility for relief, 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Finally, Oseguera-Salce’s contentions that the BIA ignored arguments raised
in his motion or did not follow proper criteria in denying his motion are not
2 14-71500
supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71500