UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ANSELMO MUNOZ-VEGA, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 23-9571 (Petition for Review)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , PHILLIPS , and ROSSMAN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Anselmo Munoz-Vega, proceeding pro se, 1 petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (B IA) denying his motion to reopen his

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Because Mr. Munoz-Vega proceeds pr o se, we construe his arguments liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsi bility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (1 0th Cir. 2005). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 19, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-9571 Document: 010111034880 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 12 immigration proceedings. Exercising juri sdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review. Mr. Munoz-Vega is a native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United States without authorization in 1999. Th e Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him in 2010. An immigration judge (IJ) found him removable as charged. With assistance from counsel, Mr. Munoz-Vega moved for cancellation of removal and vol untary departure. In 2018, the IJ granted voluntary departure but denied his application fo r cancellation of removal on the ground that Mr. Munoz-Vega failed to show any of his qualifying relatives would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship by his return to Mexico. Mr. Munoz-Vega appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed his appeal. Mr. Munoz-Vega fi led a petition for review of the BIA decision, but this court dismissed th at petition as unt imely filed. Mr. Munoz-Vega then filed a motion to re open with the BIA. In support of his motion, he attached four pi eces of evidence: a notice fro m United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in forming him it would not process the Form I-589 he submitted due to lack of jurisdiction, see R. vol. 1 at 17–18; his Form I-589 application for asylum dated October 27, 2021, see id. at 20–29; a personal declaration, see id. at 30–41; and his birth certificate, see id. at 42–43. The BIA concluded the motion was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting deadline to file a motion to reopen at 90 days following the entry of the final order of remova l). After considering and rejecting Appellate Case: 23-9571 Document: 010111034880 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 23 Mr. Munoz-Vega’s argument that an exception to the time limit applied, see id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (allowing for untim ely motions to reopen to apply for asylum if application “is ba sed on changed country conditi ons arising in the country of nationality or the country to which remova l has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not availabl e and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding”), the BIA denied the motion, concluding Mr. Munoz-Vega did not present sufficient evidence to warr ant reopening. This petition for review followed. “We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. The BIA abuses its discretion when its decision provides no ra tional explanation, inexplicably departs from established policie s, is devoid of any r easoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Estrada-Cardona v. Garland , 44 F.4th 1275, 1281–82 (10th Cir. 2022) (i nternal citation and quotation marks omitted). Mr. Munoz-Vega’s arguments do not demo nstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the BIA. He criticizes the BIA’ s denial of his original application for cancellation, but that denial is beyond the scope of the in stant petition for review.
See Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405–06 (1995) (c ontemplating separate, timely filings of petition for review from underl ying order of removal and of petition for review of denial of motion for r econsideration). He refers to Guerrero-Lasprilla v.
Barr , 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), as an interveni ng change in law warranting reopening of his immigration proceedings. But the Supreme Court decided Guerrero-Lasprilla Appellate Case: 23-9571 Document: 010111034880 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 34 before the BIA decided his initial appeal, much less before it denied his motion to reopen. And Mr. Munoz-Vega does not point to anything in Guerrero-Lasprilla suggesting the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion. He argues the BIA should have taken administra tive notice “of the well re ported fact of the large increase of violence in Mexico and de f acto control of there by violent criminal cartels,” Pet’r Opening Br. at 3, but he did not request that the BIA take judicial notice of any kind. In any event, the issu es he raises—whether and to what extent there has been a “large increase of viol ence in Mexico,” whether cartels exercise “de facto control” of the country, and whet her and how this would affect his untimely motion to reopen—are not appropriate for j udicial notice to the extent they are reasonably subject to dispute. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A) (allowing the BIA to take administrative noti ce only of “facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute”). We therefore deny the petition for review.

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 23-9571 Document: 010111034880 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 4