NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-1695 CARLOS ALBERTO PAREDES-RIVEROS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Margaret R. Reichenberg (No. A095-429-609) ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 13, 2017 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 9, 2018) OPINION * ________________ AMBRO, Circuit Judge * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Carlos Paredes-Riveros, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions us to remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In March of 2009 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Paredes removed to Peru after finding him ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Paredes appealed, and the BIA affirmed. Fifteen months later, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings; the BIA denied that motion and entered its final order of removal. Paredes petitioned us to review the BIA’s decision, and we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Years later, in November of 2016, he filed a numerically barred and untimely motion with the BIA asking that it reopen his case on its own motion. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (“An alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings. . . .”); id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (“[T]he motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“[The BIA] may at any time reopen . . . on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision.”). Paredes sought sua sponte reopening so that he could apply for an adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) through his daughter, a recently naturalized U.S. citizen, and ask the Department of Homeland Security for a Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility 2 Grounds (“TRIG”) exemption. 1 Based on allegedly changed conditions in Peru, 2 he also sought reopening to reapply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and CAT protection. The BIA denied the motion in its entirety. In his petition for review, Paredes argues that the BIA erred by basing its decision not to reopen sua sponte on an incorrect legal premise and abused its discretion by failing to consider his arguments and evidence of changed conditions in Peru. The BIA had jurisdiction over Paredes’s motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003(2). While we have jurisdiction over petitions for review of BIA final orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we have repeatedly held that “the BIA has ‘unfettered discretion to decline to sua sponte reopen.’” Chehazeh v. Att’y Gen., 666 F.3d 118, 129 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 475 (3d Cir. 2003)). Therefore, we generally cannot review its denial of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals