Amaya
Amaya v. Holder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). Because petitioners’ second motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as time — and number-barred. See id.
In addition, petitioners’ claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3) (ii). Because petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.