Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0550-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Del Carmen CORZA and Ramiro Corza-Cervantes, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72921
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 23, 2017
    Maria Del Carmen Corza, Pro Se
    Ramiro Corza-Cervantes, Pro Se
    OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria. Del Carmen Corza and Ramiro Corza-Cervantes, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. 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 petitioners’ successive motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely and number-barred where it was filed nearly 11 years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2),(c)(2) and they have not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contentions regarding new evidence of hardship and ineffective assistance of counsel, See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

To the extent petitioners contend that the agency should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen their case, we also lack jurisdiction to consider that contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-824 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

Petitioners’ request for a stay of removal is dismissed as moot.

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