NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRANDON ELIAS PEREZ-CARDONA, No. 23-3260

Agency No.

Petitioner, A208-980-094 v.

MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Brandon Elias Perez-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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.

*

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). 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 Perez-Cardona’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over four years after the final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final removal order), and Perez-Cardona has not established changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant must produce material evidence that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Perez-Cardona’s remaining contentions regarding his prima facie eligibility for relief. 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).

To the extent Perez-Cardona contends the BIA should have reopened his proceedings due to hardship and to seek other relief, these contentions are not properly before the court because he failed to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).

2 23-3260 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 23-3260