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 (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Munoz-Vega proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments 

liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in 

constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux 

& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th 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: 1
2 

immigration proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction 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. The 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 voluntary departure. In 2018, the IJ granted voluntary 

departure but denied his application for 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 filed a petition for review of the BIA 

decision, but this court dismissed that petition as untimely filed. 

Mr. Munoz-Vega then filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. In support of his 

motion, he attached four pieces of evidence: a notice from United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services informing 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 removal). After considering and rejecting 

Appellate Case: 23-9571 Document: 010111034880 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 2
3 

Mr. Munoz-Vega’s argument that an exception to the time limit applied, 

see id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (allowing for untimely motions to reopen to apply for 

asylum if application “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country 

of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is 

material and was not available 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 warrant 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 rational explanation, 

inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains 

only summary or conclusory statements.” Estrada-Cardona v. Garland, 

44 F.4th 1275, 1281–82 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal citation and quotation marks 

omitted). 

Mr. Munoz-Vega’s arguments do not demonstrate 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 instant petition for review. 

See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405–06 (1995) (contemplating separate, timely 

filings of petition for review from underlying order of removal and of petition for 

review of denial of motion for reconsideration). He refers to Guerrero-Lasprilla v. 

Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), as an intervening 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: 3
4 

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 administrative notice “of the well reported fact of the large 

increase of violence in Mexico and de facto 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 issues he raises—whether and to what extent 

there has been a “large increase of violence in Mexico,” whether cartels exercise 

“de facto control” of the country, and whether and how this would affect his untimely 

motion to reopen—are not appropriate for judicial 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 notice 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