Pablo Velasquez, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74972 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 01 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN PABLO VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, No. 07-74972 Agency No. A077-844-156 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Ruben Pablo Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his untimely 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 and de * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo questions of law. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez motion to reopen to apply for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) 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 failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances). We reject Velasquez contentions that the BIA applied improper standards of law in denying his motion to reopen because they are not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-74972

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.