Dali Eduviges Perez Perez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALI EDUVIGES PEREZ PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71815
Agency No. A206-915-519
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Dali Eduviges Perez Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
* 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
NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-71815
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez Perez’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed over two years after the order of removal
became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she
has not established changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce
material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality
had changed); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be
“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).
Perez Perez’s contention that the BIA’s denial of her motion violated her
right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --