NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSVALDO BUENROSTRO- No. 17-73029 HERNANDEZ, Agency No. A092-998-803 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Osvaldo Buenrostro-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 * 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). and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Buenrostro-Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than five months after the order of removal became final, and Buenrostro-Hernandez did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant required to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening where Buenrostro-Hernandez has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”). Buenrostro-Hernandez’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We rejected as unsupported by the record Buenrostro-Hernandez’s contentions that the immigration judge failed to grant a motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to consider Buenrostro-Hernandez’s contentions relating to the immigration judge’s denial of relief under former INA § 2 17-73029 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) because he failed to file a timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 17-73029 17-73029 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Osvaldo Buenrostro-Hernandez v. Robert Wilkinson 19 February 2021 Agency Unpublished 97480db013450d9b18f08a824a8429e42c936db9
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals