N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ANUEL ANTONIO DE JESUS C HAVEZ-RIVER

A, Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72910 Age n c y No. A098-896-326 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 De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. M anue l Antonio de

Je sus C have z -R ive ra , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings. Our jurisdiction is gove rne d by

8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a



# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 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.

* * 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).m otion to re o pe n , and re vie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la i m s. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing C have z -R ive ra ’ s se c o nd m otion to re o pe n a s untim e l y an d num be r-barre d, whe re C have z -R ive ra ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t a ny sta tutory or re gula tory e xc e ption to the

filing lim ita tions a pplie s. S e e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C ); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3) (se tting forth e xc e ptions to the

filing lim ita tions for m otions to re ope n ). C have z -R ive ra ’ s c onte ntions tha t the B IA fa ile d to c o nside r re le va nt fa c tors or e vide nc e , a

pplie d a n inc orre c t le ga l sta

nda rd, or othe rwise fa ile d to suffic ie ntly artic ulate its re a sons for de ny ing his motion a re unsupporte d

by the re c ord. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). Ac c ordingly , C have z -R ive ra ’ s due proc e ss c l a im s fa il. Se e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and pre judic e to pre va il on due proc e s s c la im ). To the e xte nt C have z -R ive ra now c onte nds he is e ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m ova l, we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r this une x ha uste d c onte ntion. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w

1 4 - 7 2 9 1 0 2le ga l c l a im s not pre se nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the B IA.” ). To the e xte nt C have z -R ive ra c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s de c ision not to invoke its sua sponte a

uthority to re ope n, we la c k jurisdic tion ove r that c onte n t ion. S e e Me j ia-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C ir. 2011); c f. Bonilla v. Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th C ir. 2016). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r C have z -R ive ra ’ s re que st for prose c utoria l disc re tion. Se e Vilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C ir. 2012) (orde r). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 2 9 1 0 3