N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GER M AN JAIM ES SOLANO, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-73040 Age n c y No. A077-358-523
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 11, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d B R ESS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C ARD O NE, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Ge rm an Ja i m e s Sola no (Sola no), a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s (B IA)



# FIL ED
MAY13 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge(IJ)’ s de nia l of his untime ly m otion to re ope n. Our jurisdic tion a

rise s unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. TheB IA de c line d to re ope n pursua nt to its sua

sponte a uthority . W e ge ne ra lly

la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision not to re ope n proc e e dings sua sponte unde r 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(a). Se e Singh v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th C ir. 2014). Thus, we re vie w only

for

“ le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rror.” Bonilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th C ir. 2016). B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fa m i lia r with the fa c t s, we will not re c i te the m he re . W e dism iss the pe tition. 1. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision. Sola n o a sse rts tha

t the B IA re ste d its de c ision on a le ga l e rror be c a

use it wrongly

de te rm ine d tha

t the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion in Monc rie ffev . Holde r , 569 U.S. 184 (2013)––a nd by
e xte nsion, our de c ision in Unite d State s v . Aguile ra-Rios , 769 F.3d 626 (9th C ir. 2014)––doe s not re pre se nt a funda m e n ta l c ha

nge in the la

w a nd the re fore doe s not
c onstitute an e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e wa rra n ting sua

sponte re ope ning. B ut we
re c e ntly m a de c le ar that the B IA “ is not re quire d . . . to re ope n

proc e e dings sua sponte in e xc e ptiona l situa

tions, e ve n those involving a funda m e nta l c ha

nge in the la w.” Lona v . Barr , 958 F.3d 1225, 1234–35 (9th C ir. 2020) (c le ane d up). Thus,

2the B IA wa s unde r no obliga tion to e xe rc ise its sua

sponte a uthority to re o pe n e ve n if Monc rie

ffec onstitute s a

funda m e n ta l c ha

nge . 1 2. B e c a

use Sola no fa ile d to ra ise the issue be fore the B IA, we a lso la c k jurisdic tion to a ddre ss Sola n o ’ s c la im

tha t, following P e re ira v
. Se s sions , 138 S. C t. 2105 (2018), he

is e ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(d)(1). PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D.

1 Sola no a lso a rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d in finding tha t he ha d not file d

a m otion to re o pe n d i re c tly with theB IA, re nde ring 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(g)(3)’ s provisions on unoppose d m otions ina p plic a ble
. B u t e ve n if the B IA e rre d in this re ga rd, the B IA ha d no obliga tion to gra

nt Sola no’ s m otion sim

ply be c a use it wa s unoppose d. Se e Limsc o v . IN S , 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th C ir. 1991).

3