Marinell Belen v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 09-70019 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 25 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARINELL DEL MUNDO BELEN, Petitioner, No. 09-70019 Agency No. A070-969-322 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Marinell Del Mundo Belen, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of * 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). a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Belen s motion to reopen as untimely where Belen filed it nearly twelve years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Belen failed to submit material evidence of changed circumstances in the Philippines that would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring circumstances to have changed sufficiently that petitioner now has a well-founded fear of persecution). We agree with the agency that Belen is not eligible for repapering to apply for cancellation of removal because he already had a final deportation order when the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA ) took effect. See IIRIRA, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 309(c)(3), 110 Stat. 3009-626 (1996) (authorizing the Attorney General to terminate proceedings pending at the time IIRIRA took effect and to reinitiate proceedings under the new statutory scheme for removal proceedings); see also Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2004). Belen s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-70019

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.