From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 30, 2009
339 F. App'x 781 (9th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 06-74533.

Submitted July 29, 2009.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 30, 2009.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A096-339-651.

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jose Vicente Lopez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Hernandez's motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") as untimely, because he did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he did not present material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

We reject Lopez Hernandez's contention that there are no time limits for filing motions to reopen raising CAT claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 30, 2009
339 F. App'x 781 (9th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:Jose Vicente LOPEZ HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 30, 2009

Citations

339 F. App'x 781 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Go v. Holder

This is an argument that we have repeatedly rejected in a series of unpublished decisions. See, e.g.,Singh v.…