
    Eddie PAREDES-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71408.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 2016.
    Filed Feb. 22, 2016.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Eddie Paredes-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying Pa-redes-Perez’s motion to reopen his 1992 removal proceedings. The BIA denied the motion as untimely. The motion was filed years after the expiration of the 90-day filing period, and petitioner does not contend that any of the exceptions to that limitation apply. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3), 1003.23(b)(4).

Paredes-Perez contends that the underlying criminal conviction on which the deportation was based is now unsound because the conviction has been expunged under California’s state rehabilitative procedures, and also, because a 2007 decision of this court invalidated the conviction. See Paredes-Perez v. Keisler, 252 Fed.Appx. 132 (9th Cir.2007). Neither contention has merit.

Petitioner has never shown that the ex-pungement vitiated the immigration consequences of the conviction within the meaning of Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 749-50 (9th Cir.2000), overruled, in part by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.2011). This court’s 2007 decision held only that in a subsequent removal proceeding,.the agency had not. relied on appropriate documentation to establish the conviction. It did not vitiate the conviction itself. Petitioner has not provided any plausible justification either for reopening, or for his delay.

The BIA correctly ruled that the motion to reopen was untimely.

Petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     