NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAN MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Nos. 16-73569
17-70968
Petitioner,
Agency No. A087-164-286
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Adan Martinez-Hernandez, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his first and second motions to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia, and his motion to reconsider the denial of the
first motion to reopen. 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 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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de
novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
In No. 16-73569, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying
Martinez-Hernandez’s first motion to reopen, where he failed to comply with the
procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and
therefore did not establish that the alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel
constituted exceptional circumstances for failing to appear at his hearing. See
Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-98 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that ineffective
assistance of counsel may qualify as an exceptional circumstance, but denying
relief because petitioner failed to comply with Matter of Lozada).
In No. 17-70968, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-
Hernandez’s motion, construed as a motion to reconsider, for failure to identify
any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
In No. 17-70968, the BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying
Martinez-Hernandez’s motion, construed as a second motion to reopen, as
untimely and number-barred, where he filed the motion nearly two years after the
applicable filing deadline, and he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed
country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing
deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137
2 17-70968
(9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he changed country conditions exception is concerned with
two points in time: the circumstances of the country at the time of the petitioner’s
previous hearing, and those at the time of the motion to reopen.”); Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country
conditions). We reject Martinez-Hernandez’s contention that the BIA ignored
evidence and arguments presented in his motion, or insufficiently explained its
decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency
need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
did review the record).
Martinez-Hernandez’s motion to remand is denied. See Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not
include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70968