FRANCISCO ROSALES-URQUILLA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70085 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 25 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FRANCISCO PAUL ROSALESURQUILLA, a.k.a. P. Francisco Roseales Urquillo, No. 12-70085 Agency No. A0773-877-535 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Francisco Paul Rosales-Urquilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Rosales-Urquilla s motion to take judicial notice of a receipt issued by USCIS showing that he filed a petition for a U-Visa is denied. The BIA found Rosales-Urquilla s motion to reopen was untimely because the motion was filed over thirteen years after the BIA s final order and RosalesUrquilla failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. Rosales-Urquilla raises a contention regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture, but does not argue this issue is relevant to the BIA s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. Nor does Rosales-Urquilla otherwise challenge the BIA s basis for denying his untimely motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny the petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-70085

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.