N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ENITO ESTEB AN M EZA-DIVENI, AKA B e nito Este da

n M e z a , Jr., Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 15-73285 15-73870 Age n c y No. A073-839-360 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 A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 14, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , C L IFTON, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. B e nito Esteba

n M e z a -Dive ni pe titions for revie w of de c i sions of theB oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his motion to re o pe n a nd subse que nt m otion to re c onside r to a

pply for c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l . W e de ny the pe tition. 

# FIL ED JUL 15 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.If the B IA de c line s to gra nt sua sponte

re ope ning “without re ly ing on a c onstitutiona

lly or le ga l ly

e rrone ous pre m i se ,” its de c ision is not revie w a ble
. Bonilla v. Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 592 (9th C ir. 2016). M e z a -Dive n i a rgue s tha t this c ourt ha s jurisdic tion be c a use he ra ise s six le ga l c la im s, but we are not c onvinc e d by any of the se c la i m s. First, M e z a -Dive ni a

rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d in a

p ply ing a due dilige nc e re quire m e nt to his mo tion to re ope nsua sponte . In c o nc luding M e z a -Dive n i did not e sta blish a n “ e xc e ptiona l situa

tion”suffic ie nt to wa

rrant s ua sponte

re ope ning, the B IA c onside re d it signific ant tha t he did not dilige

ntly pursue re lie f in im m igration c ourt. The“ e xc e p tiona l situa tion”be nc hm ark doe s not provide a suffic i e ntly

m e an ingful sta

nda rd to pe rm it judic ia l re vie w. Bonilla , 840 F.3d a t 586. Se c ond, he argue s tha t the B IA e rre d in re quiring tha t his motion to re ope n be file d within ninet

y da y s of the c ha

nge in c onvic tion prom

pting there que st. Howe ve r, the B IA only

m e ntione d the nine ty

da y pe riod in c onc luding M e z a Dive ni’ s m otion wa s untim e ly , not in e xpla ining its re fusa l to re ope n s ua sponte . Se e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i). Third, heargue s tha

t the B IA m isc ha

ra c t e riz e d the re c ord in finding no due dilige n c e . Howe v e r, the B IA only c onside re d diligenc e a s pa rt of its “ e x c e p tiona l
2situa

tion” finding, a

nd this c ourt la c ks jurisdic t ion to re vie wtha t de te rm ination. Bonilla , 840 F.3d a

t 586. Fourth, he argue s tha

t the B IA de pa

rte d from its pa st pra c tic e of gra

nting sua sponte re ope ning ba se d on a

va c ate d c rim ina l c onvic tion. Eve n a ssum ing B IA de viation from

a patte rn or pra c tic e c ould c re ate jurisdic tion, M e z a -Dive ni ha s not de m onstra

te d a “ c le a rly de fine d” patte rn of B IA dispositions ta ilore d to his c irc um s ta nc e s . Me ne nde

z-Gonzale

z v . Barr , No. 15-73869, 2019 W L 3022376 (9th C ir. July 11, 2019). Fifth, he argue s tha

t the B IA is re quire d

to gra nt re ope n ing whe re the ba sis for re m ova

bility is nullifie d. M e z a -Dive ni ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t the B IA’ s re fusa l to do so is le ga l or c o n stitutiona l e rror. Id. Sixth, heargue s tha

t the B IA e rre d

in finding he

wa s not prima

fa c ie e ligible for c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l. The B IA did not re ly on his ine l igibility

for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l i n de ny ing his motion to re o pe n. M e z a -Dive ni the re fore ha s not e sta

blishe d a ny le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rror c re ating jurisdiction. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

3