Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0457-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar Moises SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71670
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 4, 2016
    Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Cesar Moisés Sanchez, Pro Se
    Deitz P. Lefort, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. • See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Moisés Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he did not provide sufficient evidence of changed country conditions to invoke the filing deadline exception, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Sanchez’s contention that a change in law makes him eligible for asylum and thus invokes the exception to the filing deadline is unavailing. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (asserting a change of law, rather than a change in conditions in the country of removal, is an improper expansion of the exception).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s -discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Sanchez fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853, 2016 WL3741866, at *10 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016) (“[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.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid.ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.