UNITED STATES CO URT 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) de cision 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 fe lony of forcible sexual abuse. Following his conviction,

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 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, c onceded he was remova ble, and sought no relief from removal. On September 30, 19 94, an immigration j udge (IJ) sustained the charge and ordered Morales- Pantoja removed to Mexico. More than nineteen years later, on Ja nuary 23, 2014, Morales-Pantoja filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte . He argued that his Utah

conviction had been reduced to a mi sdemeanor—attempted sexual battery—and therefore he wished to reopen proceedings to pursue an application for adjustment of status. The IJ denied his request, and th e BIA affirmed, ruling, among other things, that he failed to show exceptional circ umstances warranting reopening his case. Now in this court, Morales-Pantoja cont ends the BIA violated his due process rights by declining to sua sponte reopen his removal proceed ings. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discreti onary 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 clai ms and questions of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Morales-Pantoj a’s attempt to cast his argument as a deprivation of due process is unavailing because an alien in removal pro ceedings “has no liberty or property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief,” Salgado-Toribio , 713 F.3d

1 The Supreme Court has specifically rese rved 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 fo r a decision and we lack jurisdiction to review one, it would be beyo nd our Article III judicial pow er to review the other.”). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge