Gabriel Razcon-Gamez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL RAZCON-GAMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72847
Agency No. A092-659-321
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2019**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: IKUTA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District Judge.
Gabriel Razcon-Gamez petitions for review of an order of the Board of
FILED
MAR 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Razcon-Gamez’s
motion to reopen was untimely. The 90-day deadline for motions to reopen
deportation proceedings established by regulation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), was
promulgated in April 1996 and made effective July 1, 1996, see Executive Office
for Immigration Review; Motions and Appeals in Immigration Proceedings, 61
Fed. Reg. 18,900 (Apr. 29, 1996). It is therefore not impermissibly retroactive as
to Razcon-Gamez, who was placed in exclusion proceedings in August 1996.
The regulation establishing the deadline for motions to reopen to apply for
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) specifies that “[a]n alien under
a final order of deportation, exclusion, or removal that became final prior to March
22, 1999 may move to reopen proceedings for the sole purpose of seeking
protection under § 1208.16(c),” so long as the motion to reopen is filed by June 21,
1999. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2). Because Razcon-Gamez filed his motion to
reopen after June 21, 1999, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
it was untimely.
The BIA’s determination that Razcon-Gamez had not demonstrated a change
in country conditions material to his claim for relief under CAT because his
2

-- 2 of 3 --

evidence was not sufficiently individualized, see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 992 (9th Cir. 2010), was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the
exception to the time bar for filing a motion to reopen based on changed country
conditions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), was not applicable to Razcon-Gamez’s
motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --