UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

MIGUEL ANGEL MORALESPANTOJA, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 14-9556 

(Petition for Review)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Miguel Angel Morales-Pantoja, a Mexican national, petitions for review of a 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen removal 

proceedings sua sponte. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Morales-Pantoja entered this country in 1992 without inspection. In 1994, he 

pleaded guilty to the Utah felony of forcible sexual abuse. Following his conviction, 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 18, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

he was placed in removal proceedings, conceded he was removable, and sought no 

relief from removal. On September 30, 1994, an immigration judge (IJ) sustained the 

charge and ordered Morales-Pantoja removed to Mexico. 

More than nineteen years later, on January 23, 2014, Morales-Pantoja filed a 

motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. He argued that his Utah 

conviction had been reduced to a misdemeanor—attempted sexual battery—and 

therefore he wished to reopen proceedings to pursue an application for adjustment of 

status. The IJ denied his request, and the BIA affirmed, ruling, among other things, 

that he failed to show exceptional circumstances warranting reopening his case. 

Now in this court, Morales-Pantoja contends the BIA violated his due process 

rights by declining to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. This court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny a motion to reopen 

sua sponte. Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 2013); 

Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1361 (10th Cir. 2004).1

 Although we retain 

jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), Morales-Pantoja’s attempt to cast his argument as a deprivation of 

due process is unavailing because an alien in removal proceedings “has no liberty or 

property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief,” Salgado-Toribio, 713 F.3d 

 

1

 The Supreme Court has specifically reserved the question of whether federal 

courts may review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen sua sponte, Kucana v. 

Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 251 n.18 (2010), but our precedent prevents us from reviewing 

such decisions, see Mendiola v. Holder, 576 F. App’x 828, 836-37 (10th Cir. 2014) 

(unpublished) (citing cases). 
- 3 - 

at 1271 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, our lack of jurisdiction over 

the BIA’s discretionary basis for denying relief forecloses our review of its 

alternative grounds. See Ekasinta v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2005) 

(“[I]f there are two alternative grounds for a decision and we lack jurisdiction to 

review one, it would be beyond our Article III judicial power to review the other.”). 

 Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Nancy L. Moritz 

 Circuit Judge