The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-71188•Fermin Reyes Perez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General
19-71188Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 27, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERMIN REYES PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71188
Agency No. A096-364-554
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Fermin Reyes Perez, 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. § 1252. We review for
* 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).
FILED
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 19-71188
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes Perez’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more than ten years after
the order of removal became final and was beyond the numerical limitations, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Reyes Perez did not establish changed country
conditions in Mexico that are material to his claim for relief, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring material evidence of changed circumstances to qualify
for exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen); see also
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant required to
produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of
nationality had changed).
As stated in the court’s July 19, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.