Mainor Amilcar Marroquin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAINOR AMILCAR MARROQUIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70417
Agency No. A072-544-152
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.
Mainor Amilcar Marroquin, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
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 3 --

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo due process
claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marroquin’s untimely
motion to reopen where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Marroquin failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010). We reject Marroquin’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence
because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We also reject his
contentions that the BIA did not consider his new claim and failed to give his
affidavit full weight.
In light of our conclusions, Marroquin’s due process claims fail, see Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice
to establish a due process violation), and we need not reach Marroquin’s
contention that the BIA failed to address the Guatemalan government’s ability and
willingness to protect him. We lack jurisdiction to consider Marroquin’s
contention that the government failed to establish his deportability by clear and

-- 2 of 3 --

convincing evidence. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --