PABLO PIRIR-CHITAY V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-70536 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PABLO EDWIN PIRIR-CHITAY, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-70536 Agency No. A071-583-933 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Pablo Edwin Pirir-Chitay, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the * 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). petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pirir-Chitay’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the second motion to reopen was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Pirir-Chitay failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence of general country conditions was not material to petitioner’s claim). To the extent Pirir-Chitay contends that he fears harm on account of his family membership or his mother’s opposition to gangs, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because Pirir-Chitay failed to present them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 19-70536

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.