Jose Aguilar Mejia v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS AGUILAR MEJIA, No. 16-70850 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-479-849 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Aguilar Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. * 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). Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguilar Mejia’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed two years after the final order of removal, and where Aguilar Mejia failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner failed to submit material evidence of qualitatively different country conditions). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Aguilar Mejia’s remaining contentions regarding his particular social group. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguilar Mejia contentions related to his initial proceedings because he did not timely petition for review as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-70850 16-70850 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Aguilar Mejia v. Merrick Garland 15 July 2022 Agency Unpublished 1bdf415904b4c380491b144004d7c0fa4c9237fb

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals