Court Opinion

ID: 9901898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:00:52.622846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.061444
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS FRANCISCO ALVAREZ,                       No. 22-1414
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A092-664-429
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Francisco Alvarez, 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 decision denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

      *
             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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,

986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss the petition for

review.

      We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening

where Alvarez has not raised a colorable legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla

v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to

review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of

reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

                                        2                                   22-1414