N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALFONSO ANDR

ADE HER

NADEZ, AKA Alfonso Andra de He rnande z ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-70052 Age n c y No. A092-049-270
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 Ja

nua ry 26, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD, R

AW L INSON, and B RESS, C irc uit Judge s. Alfonso Andra de He rnan de z (He rnande z ), a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) de ny ing a m otion to sua sponte re ope n his im m igration proc e e dings. W e ge ne ra lly



# FIL ED
JAN 30 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a) to re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n. Se ePe re

z-C amac ho v . Garland

, 54 F.4th 597, 603 (9th C i r. 2022). B ut,

“ we have no jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s sua sponte a uthority ,” Lona v
. Barr , 958 F.3d 1225, 1232 (9th C ir. 2020), e xc e p t “ for the lim ite d purpose of re vie wing the re a soning be h ind thede c ision[ ] for le ga l or c onstitutiona l e rror.” Bonilla v

. Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th C ir. 2016), as ame nde d . W e re vie w de novo due proc e s s c la im s. Se eMuk

ulumbutu v . Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th C ir. 2020). The B IA did not c om

m it le ga l e rror whe n de te rm i ning tha t He rnande z ’ s nolo
c onte nde re ple a

to viola t ing C a lifornia

He a lth a nd Sa fe ty C ode § 11378 (posse ssion of m e tha

m phe tam ine for sa l e ) c o nstitute d a re m ova ble c ontrolle d substa nc e offe nse . In U

nite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z-Gamboa , 972 F.3d 1148, 1552, 1153–54 (9th C ir. 2020), we c onc l ude d tha t the re is a

“ c at e goric a l m at c h” be twe e n § 11378 a nd the C ontrolle d Substa

nc e s Ac t. Although the

B IA’ s de c ision pre date s our de c ision in Rodrigue

z-Gamboa , it c orre c tly

re a sone d tha

t He rnande z fa ile d to de m onstra

te “ a re a listic proba

bility ” tha t a pe rson would beprose c ute d unde r § 11378 for posse s sion of ge om e tric isom e rs of m e tha m phe tam ine tha

t a re not inc l ude d in thefe de ra l C ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t. Se eid. at 1154. W e re je c t He rnande z ’ s a

rgum e nts tha

t his nolo c onte nde re ple a is distinguisha

b le from the guilty

ple a in Rodrigue

z-Gamboa , and the re fore his
2c onvic tion for a viola tion of § 11378 wa s not a re m ova ble offe n se . In He rna

nde z ’ s prior a ppe a l, we de te rm ine d tha

t the se c onte ntions a

re fore c lose d by our pre c e de nt. Se e He rnande

z v . Se ssions , 715 F. App’ x. 708, 709 (9th C ir. 2018). He rnande z a lso a

rgue s tha t the B IA viola

te d his right to due

proc e ss by de c lining to e xe rc i se its disc re tion to re ope n his c a se sua sponte . He rnande z doe s not a sse rt tha

t the B IA c o m

m itte d le ga l or c onstitutiona l e rror, se eBonilla , 840 F.3d at 588, but inste a d, c o nte nds tha t our de c ision in Lore nzo v . Se ssions , 902 F.3d 930 (9th C ir. 2018), wa s a signific a nt c ha nge in la w e sta blishing e x c e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s for the B IA to re ope n his c a se sua sponte . B ut we have re pe ate dly he ld tha t we do not ha

ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w B IA de c isions not to s ua sponte
re ope n a c a se . Se eBonilla , 840 F.3d a t 585–86. B e c a

use the B IA c om

m itte d no le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rrors in de c lining to e xe rc ise its sua sponte a uthority , we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the de c ision on this ba sis. Se eid. at 588. Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r He rnande z ’ s argum e nt tha t initia ting
re m ova l proc e e d ings for a c onvic tion tha

t ha p pe ne d se ve n y e ars e arlie r viola te d due proc e ss a

nd the Double Je opa

rdy c l a use be c a use he did not ra ise tha

t a rgum e nt be fore the B IA. Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting tha

t the c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w c la im s not pre se nte d to the
a ge nc y ).
3PE T IT IO N DE NIE D in par t and DISM ISSE D in par t.

4