
    Sergio OSEGUERA-SALCE, AKA Sergio Salce Oseguera, AKA Sergio Oseguera-Salch, AKA Sergio Osegura, AKA Sergio Salce Osegura, AKA Salce Oseguera Sergio, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71500
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Sergio Oseguera-Salce, Pro Se
    Matt Crapo, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office . of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Oseguera-Salce, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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, and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oseguera-Salce’s motion as untimely, where the motion was filed more than one year after the agency’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (setting a 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen), and Oseguera-Salce failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline,. see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Contrary to Oseguera-Salce’s contention, the BIA did not err in not addressing Oseguera-Salce’s competency in the order under review, where the IJ had addressed competency under Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I.&N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), during his underlying proceedings, the medical evidence submitted with the motion did not show a matérial change since the IJ hearing, and the BIA considered the new medical evidence as it related to his eligibility for relief, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Finally, Oseguera-Salce’s contentions that the BIA ignored arguments raised in his motion or did not follow proper criteria in denying his motion are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     