Yuvani Isaac Castellanos- Santiago v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUVANI ISAAC CASTELLANOS-
SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71296
Agency No. A079-594-916
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yuvani Isaac Castellanos-Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Castellanos-Santiago’s
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred. First, the successive motion was
filed more than four years after his removal order became final. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). Second, Castellanos-Santiago failed to present material evidence
of changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for an exception to the filing
deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence of change
in the country of origin that would establish prima facie eligibility for relief).
Third, he failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the
filing deadline. See Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and
exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Castellanos-Santiago’s
remaining contentions. See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th
Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-71296 2

-- 2 of 2 --