Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario SANTOS-BAHENA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70451.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 2, 2009.
    Carlos Ramirez, Esquire, Law Office of Noemi G. Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esquire, Liza Murcia, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Mario Santos-Bahena, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his second motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status as numerically barred. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

To the extent Santos-Bahena challenges the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Santos-Bahena does not challenge the Board’s determination that his second motion to reopen exceeded the number limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because the motion is number-barred, we deny the petition for review, and we need not address Santos-Bahena’s remaining challenges.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.