U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011

Trisha Mukweya v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Trisha Mukweya v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 21, 2011 · Farris, O'Scannlain, Bybee
422 F. App'x 647

Counsel

Julio Cesar Moreno Heredia, Hawthorne, CA, pro se., Oil, Stefanie A. Svoren, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Trisha Mukweya v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Cesar Moreno-Heredia, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Heredia’s third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed nearly five years after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Moreno Heredia failed to establish changed circumstances in Peru to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical bar for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did hot have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.