NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PUSHPAMALAR No. 14-70620 SATCHITHANANTHAN, Agency No. A079-784-814 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Pushpamalar Satchithananthan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, 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. * 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). Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Satchithananthan’s third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically-barred where the motion was filed more than nine years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Satchithananthan failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Sri Lanka to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations 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 (petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Satchithananthan’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider record evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA’s consideration of whether a fundamental change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of its sua sponte authority); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Finally, we reject as without merit Satchithananthan’s contention that intervening case law requires reconsideration of this court’s decision in 2 14-70620 Satchithananthan v. Holder, 508 Fed. Appx. 652, 653 (9th Cir. 2013). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-70620 14-70620 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Pushpamalar Satchithananthan v. Jefferson Sessions 21 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 4eb7558b20917fc0c523668772aad17708ebc1c8
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals