Court Opinion

ID: 9865475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 18:00:39.048222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:01.064793
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIOMARA NOHEMI MORENO                           No. 22-1817
MONROY,                                         Agency No.
                                                A208-898-926
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Xiomara Nohemi Moreno Monroy, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed

      *
             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).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to

reopen as untimely, where it was filed over six months after the final removal

order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within

ninety days of the final removal order), and petitioner has not established changed

country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th

Cir. 2008) (movant must produce material evidence that conditions in country of

nationality had changed); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be

“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

      To the extent Moreno Monroy challenges the merits of her underlying

claims, we do not review these determinations because the petition for review is

not timely as to the agency order that decided those issues. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days

after the date of the final order of removal.”).

      We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020)

(denial of sua sponte reopening is committed to agency discretion and

                                          2                                  22-1817
unreviewable).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                      3                                  22-1817