Avila-Perez v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM ** Cosme Damian Avila-Perez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avila-Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely where Avila-Perez filed the motion more than four months after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and failed to submit any evidence of changed country conditions in Guatemala that would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring circumstances to “have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution”). To the extent Avila-Perez contends that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). To the extent Avila-Perez contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel, we lack jurisdiction to consider that claim because he failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Avila-Perez’s direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.