NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBARO ANTONIO LEMUS- No. 16-73945 SANDOVAL, Agency No. A027-193-059 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Albaro Antonio Lemus-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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 denial of a motion to * 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). reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Lemus- Sandoval’s motion to reopen, because he filed the motion a year and a half after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to provide sufficient evidence of materially changed country conditions to invoke the exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening for Lemus-Sandoval to seek adjustment of status, because he does not show a legal or constitutional error that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court can review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-73945 16-73945 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Albaro Lemus-Sandoval v. William Barr 13 June 2019 Agency Unpublished fa62de56724e31b5c7df923dcad33e746bcc95a8
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals