Carlos Andrade-Pocasangre v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 431 F. App'x 606 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAY 09 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CARLOS ALFREDO ANDRADE-                          No. 08-71444
    POCASANGRE,
    Agency No. A029-255-476
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 6, 2011 **
    Pasadena, California
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Carlos Andrade-Pocasangre petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his
    motion to reopen as untimely. We deny the petition.
    *
    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).
    A motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order
    of removal or deportation. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(1). This time limit does not apply
    where an alien seeks reopening to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or
    protection under Convention Against Torture, and is based on “changed country
    conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has
    been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have
    been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(4)(i).
    Petitioner does not qualify for this exception for at least two reasons.
    Petitioner fails to allege facts that would place him within a protected social group.
    See Grava v. I.N.S., 
    205 F.3d 1177
    , 1181 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Purely personal
    retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”); Santos-
    Lemus v. Mukasey, 
    542 F.3d 738
    , 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Without evidence of an
    actual political opinion or motive in [petitioner’s] or the gang’s actions, his claim
    fails.”). Moreover, Petitioner has alleged only changed personal circumstances, not
    changed country circumstances. See He v. Gonzales, 
    501 F.3d 1128
    , 1132 (9th Cir.
    2007) (holding that a “self-induced change in personal circumstances” does not
    qualify as a change in country circumstances). The BIA therefore did not abuse its
    discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See Rodriguez-Lariz v.
    2
    I.N.S., 
    282 F.3d 1218
    , 1222 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[The Ninth Circuit] reviews the
    BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.”).
    Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal is denied.
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-71444

Citation Numbers: 431 F. App'x 606

Judges: Clifton, Silverman, Tallman

Filed Date: 5/9/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023