Court Opinion

ID: 9957658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:15.247705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:32.253522
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 4 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER CASTELLANOS-MENDOZA,                     No. 23-357
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-321-000
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Walter Castellanos-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

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

second motion to reopen and denying a motion to reconsider the denial of his first

motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

      *
             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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and the denial of a motion to

reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castellanos-Mendoza’s

second motion to reopen as numerically barred and untimely, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A) (only one motion to reopen allowed), (c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to

reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final removal order), and he has not

established changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (filing limitations do

not apply to a motion to reopen “[t]o apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of

deportation based on changed circumstances arising in the country of

nationality . . . if such evidence is material and was not available and could not

have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing”); 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). We generally 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 unreviewable).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castellanos-Mendoza’s

motion to reconsider as untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to

                                         2                                    23-357
reconsider must be filed within thirty days of the final removal order), and he

failed to establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s denial of his first motion to

reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.

2004) (“A petitioner’s motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in

the BIA’s prior decision.”).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         3                                     23-357