LUIS AGUILAR MEJIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73185 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS MAURICIO AGUILAR MEJIA, Petitioner, No. 13-73185 Agency No. A094-312-424 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Luis Mauricio Aguilar Mejia, 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 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). Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguilar Mejia’s motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than six years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), he has not demonstrated that he warrants equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (requiring due diligence for equitable tolling), and he failed to present sufficient evidence of 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); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[E]ven if a change in personal circumstances is sufficient to file a successive asylum petition under [8 U.S.C.] § 1158(a)(2)(D), a change in country conditions must still be demonstrated if the accompanying motion to reopen is untimely.”). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Aguilar Mejia’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-73185

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.