NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO SEGURA RODRIGUEZ; et 

al.,

Petitioners,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 12-73083

Agency Nos. A097-364-453

A097-364-454

A097-364-455

A097-364-456

A097-364-457

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Segura Rodriguez and Ana Maria Segura Comparan, and their 

children Sergio Alberto Segura Comparan, Josue Omar Segura Comparan, and 

Juan Carlos Segura Comparan, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-73083 

to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de 

novo constitutional claims. Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 

(9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying the 

motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than six years after 

the final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to 

establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see 

Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is 

available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to 

deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in 

discovering such circumstances); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not sufficiently address their 

contentions is not supported by the record. 

Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not reach

petitioners’ contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.

Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), the competency of former counsel’s representation, or their
3 12-73083 

eligibility for asylum and related relief. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to administratively 

close proceedings. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative 

closure for lack of a sufficiently meaningful standard to evaluate the decision). We 

also lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contention regarding the 

immigration judge’s exercise of discretion. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 

678 (9th Cir. 2004) (8 U.S.C. “§ 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and therefore 

generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits 

of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below.”)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.