Ronaldo Quinonez-Colop 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RONALDO QUINONEZ-COLOP,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72151
Agency No. A070-803-772
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.
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.
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72151 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 of 2 --