Case Name: Salvador VELASQUEZ, aka Salvador Martinez Velasquez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-25
Citations: 646 F. App'x 526
Docket Number: No. 14-72261
Parties: Salvador VELASQUEZ, aka Salvador Martinez Velasquez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
Salvador VELASQUEZ, aka Salvador Martinez Velasquez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72261.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 25, 2016.
Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, OIL, Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Salvador Velasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia, and denying his motion to remand to the IJ. 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 questions of law and constitutional' claims. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir.2005); Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in. part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by determining reopening was not warranted based on lack of notice, where Velasquez did not submit an affidavit or any other evidence with his motion in support of his claim that he did not receive notice of his hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen may be "filed at any time if the alien demonstrates" lack of notice); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (a motion to reopen shall be supported by affidavits and other evi-dentiary material); Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.2003) (unsubstantiated statements of counsel do not constitute evidence).
The BIA did not err in declining to consider the sworn statement Velasquez's attorney provided on appeal to the BIA concerning Velasquez's alleged lack of notice. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (the BIA "will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals").
Nor did the BIA err or abuse its discretion in construing and denying Velasquez's motion to remand for consideration of eligibility for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act as a second, number-barred and untimely motion to reopen, where it was filed more than six years after Velasquez's final order of removal. See U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
Because the BIA did not err in dismissing Velasquez's appeal or denying his motions, Velasquez has not established a due process violation. See 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).
We lack jurisdiction over Velasquez's various unexhausted contentions, including that the IJ relied on unsubstantiated facts, rendered ineffective assistance to Velasquez, and erred regarding removability. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) ("We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA.").
To the extent Velasquez challenges the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen, we lack jurisdiction over that contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.