Vega-Ruiz v. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Vega-Ruiz v. Lynch

667 F. App'x 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketNo. 14-73214

StatusPublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 194 (Vega-Ruiz v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vega-Ruiz v. Lynch, 667 F. App'x 194 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Santiago Vega-Ruiz, 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 BIA’s 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 Vega-Ruiz’s motion to reopen as untimely, where Vega-Ruiz filed it more than two years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he did not establish changed circumstances in Guatemala as to overcome the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Santiago Vega-Ruiz, 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 BIA’s 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 Vega-Ruiz’s motion to reopen as untimely, where Vega-Ruiz filed it more than two years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he did not establish changed circumstances in Guatemala as to overcome the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vega-ruiz-v-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack