NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RITA BETY GARCIA-PEREZ, No. 18-73099 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-723-208 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Rita Bety Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the * 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). petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than three years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Garcia-Perez failed to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (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). Garcia- Perez’s argument that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence is unpersuasive. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte because Garcia-Perez has not raised a claim of legal or constitutional error. 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 2 18-73099 purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 18-73099 18-73099 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Rita Garcia-Perez v. William Barr 26 September 2019 Agency Unpublished ad7af9f60476cd882b36180b4c4000e52f0b3431
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals