RONALDO QUINONEZ-COLOP V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72151 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALDO QUINONEZ-COLOP, Petitioner, No. 11-72151 Agency No. A070-803-772 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2013 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Ronaldo Quinonez-Colop, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. * 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). Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinonez-Colop s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than nine years after his exclusion order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Quinonez-Colop failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We lack jurisdiction to consider Quinonez-Colop s contention regarding fraud by a non-attorney in the filing of his second motion to reopen because he failed to raise that claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72151

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.