Oscar Lima-Nunez v. Merrick Garland
Oscar Lima-Nunez v. Merrick Garland
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR LIMA-NUNEZ, AKA Oscar No. 20-72246 Manuel Nunez, Agency No. A071-609-947 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Lima-Nunez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
* 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lima-Nunez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over three years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he has not established changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 20-72246
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.