Meliton Cervantes Salazar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELITON CERVANTES SALAZAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70406
Agency No. A074-793-101
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Meliton Cervantes Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70406 2
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS,
311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Cervantes Salazar’s motion
as untimely, where he filed the motion over two years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate changed conditions in
Mexico material to his claims in order to warrant an exception to the deadline, see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a petitioner
cannot reopen based on changed country conditions by relying on evidence that
simply recounts generalized country conditions without demonstrating that his or
her predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by fellow citizens).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cervantes Salazar’s remaining
contentions regarding his prima facie eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --