NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAGOBERTO HERNANDEZ BAEZ, No. 18-72008 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-061-916 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Dagoberto Hernandez Baez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his fourth motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Baez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over 12 years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hernandez Baez has not established changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). We reject as unsupported by the record Hernandez Baez’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the evidence Hernandez Baez submitted. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions 2 18-72008 for legal or constitutional error.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 18-72008 18-72008 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Dagoberto Hernandez Baez v. William Barr 19 July 2019 Agency Unpublished 0bf5b4a5c6a9aea5bb786b970d836f034f505c4f
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals