Mendoza-Lopez v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 596 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ORLANDO MENDOZA-LOPEZ, No. 07-73561
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-422-454
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Luis Orlando Mendoza-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty
v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza-Lopez’s motion
to reopen as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA’s
underlying order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Mendoza-Lopez failed to
demonstrate changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation on motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (critical question is whether
circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim now does).
Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion
for failure to demonstrate changed circumstances, we do not address Mendoza-
Lopez’s challenge to the BIA’s alternative holding that, even if conditions in
Guatemala had changed, Mendoza-Lopez failed to demonstrate changed
circumstances material to his claim for CAT relief.
To the extent Mendoza-Lopez challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, we decline to consider his contentions because they have been
considered and rejected by this court in Mendoza-Lopez v. Gonzales, 205 Fed.
Appx. 630 (9th Cir. 2006). See Merrit v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.
2 07-73561
1991) (under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not
reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same
case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-73561