Court Opinion

ID: 9651921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:00:58.431191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:43.795972
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         AUG 23 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO MONTES-RAMIREZ,                           No. 22-1467
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A072-228-513
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted August 21, 2023**
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: BENNETT, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Julio Montes-Ramirez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which determined that the immigration judge

(“IJ”) lacked jurisdiction to reopen his reinstated prior removal order. Our

jurisdiction is “limited to determining whether the BIA erred in concluding that

the IJ lacked jurisdiction.” Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 54 F.4th 634, 640 (9th Cir.

      *
            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).
2022).

      Bravo-Bravo controls. There, the petitioner made the same arguments

that Montes-Ramirez makes here: (1) the IJ had jurisdiction to consider his

motion to reopen the reinstated prior removal order because “his underlying

conviction, which served as the sole predicate for his removal, was expunged”

on constitutional grounds, and (2) the agency erred by failing to exercise its sua

sponte reopening authority. Id. We rejected both arguments. We held that 8

U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) stripped the IJ and BIA of jurisdiction to consider the

petitioner’s motion to reopen based on the expunged conviction. Id. We also

held that the agency’s sua sponte reopening authority under the regulations

could not trump § 1231(a)(5)’s jurisdictional bar. Id. at 640–41. Thus, the BIA

here correctly determined that the IJ lacked jurisdiction under § 1231(a)(5).

      The motion for a stay of removal is denied. Dkt. No. 3. The temporary

stay of removal is lifted.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        2                                     22-1467