FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENNADIY ZAPOROZHETS, No. 12-72762
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-108-633
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hennadiy Zaporozhets, a native and citizen of Ukraine, 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
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
*
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).
of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaporozhets’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eighteen months after his
removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zaporozhets failed to
demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Ukraine to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline, id. at (c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008).
Zaporozhets’s contention that the BIA failed to articulate and apply the
correct legal standard is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-72762