Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0721-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edgar Rene Lopez POCON; Floridalma Veliz Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
    Richard Flores Lemus, Esquire, Law Offices of Richard F. Lemus, Fullerton, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgar Rene Lopez Pocon and Floridal-ma Veliz Hernandez, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir.2011).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (standard of review). The immigration judge and BIA did consider the evidence and arguments put forth by Petitioners. Thus, there was no due process violation.

The BIA also permissibly concluded that Petitioners had knowingly and intelligently ■withdrawn their application for asylum and waived their rights to appeal, and did so in exchange for the grant of pre-conclusion voluntary departure. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2005).

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