Case ID: f-appx_618/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles McBARANGO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73176.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Erika Vejar, Esquire, Vejar Law Firm, San Dimas, CA, for Petitioner. ■
    Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, U.S; Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Charles McBarango, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying McBarango’s second motion to reopen, filed five years after his order of removal became final, as time- and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Contrary to McBarango’s contention, the BIA provided a reasoned explanation for denial. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir.2014).

Because these determinations are dis-positive, we do not reach McBarango’s contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status.

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.