FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER HERNANDEZ-SALAZAR, No. 14-73237 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-269-546 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 4, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Javier Hernandez-Salazar (“Hernandez-Salazar”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings. Because the parties are familiar * 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). with the facts of the case, we need not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition. 1. We review the BIA’s decision to deny the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hernandez-Salazar’s motion was untimely and number-barred because he failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Mexico since the time of his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (providing that only one motion to reopen, which must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal, may be submitted unless the motion “is based on changed country conditions”). Hernandez-Salazar’s motion was filed five years after his final order of removal, and the evidence he provided shows that the conditions he complains of existed at the time of his earlier hearing. We deny this portion of the petition. 2. We have jurisdiction to review BIA “decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Hernandez-Salazar challenges the BIA’s refusal to reopen his case sua sponte, but does not identify any legal or constitutional error in the BIA’s 2 reasoning. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the refusal to reopen sua sponte, and we dismiss this portion of the petition. PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. 3 14-73237 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Javier Hernandez-Salazar v. William Barr 10 August 2020 Agency Unpublished c4d699347d78e72e380c09f72b9c2b86dd1769e5
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals