Court Opinion

ID: 9892718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 18:01:58.099599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:47.872414
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAUL REY ZERMENO-CASTELLANOS,                   No. 22-298
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A094-301-260
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted October 20, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,*** District
Judge.

      Saul Rey Zermeno-Castellanos petitions for review of an order issued by the

      *
             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).
      ***
             The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen his

removal proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary

decision. We therefore dismiss the petition for review.

        The BIA denied Zermeno-Castellanos’s second motion to reopen as

untimely and number-barred, finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to

justify reopening the proceedings sua sponte. We generally lack jurisdiction to

review the BIA’s exercise of its discretion not to sua sponte reopen removal

proceedings. See Lara-Garcia v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1271, 1277 (9th Cir. 2022).

And although there is an exception to this doctrine permitting review “for the

limited purpose of determining whether the [BIA] based its decision on legal or

constitutional error,” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016),

Zermeno-Castellanos points to no legal or constitutional error that he believes the

BIA committed. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision.

        DISMISSED.1

1
    Zermeno-Castellanos’s request for a stay of removal, is denied as moot.

                                         2                                    22-298