Hubany De Leon Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions , 695 F. App'x 270 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUBANY APARICIO DE LEON LOPEZ, No. 15-71602
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-051-234
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hubany Aparicio De Leon Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion
to reconsider the denial of his prior motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying De Leon Lopez’s motion
to reconsider for failure to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s prior decision
denying his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2). De Leon Lopez did
not show that the IJ erred in denying his underlying motion to reopen, where De
Leon Lopez had not presented a copy of his notice of hearing to support his claim
that it was confusing, and had not established eligibility for relief. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(e)(1); cf. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that
petitioner established exceptional circumstances where he arrived late to his
hearing based on a misunderstanding, had previously appeared at all scheduled
hearings, and had “no possible reason to try to delay the hearing” because he was
eligible for adjustment of status as the beneficiary of an approved visa petition). In
addition, the record does not support his contention that the agency failed to
consider relevant factors or evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did
review the record).
2 15-71602
We do not reach De Leon Lopez’s contentions regarding equitable tolling
and ineffective assistance. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010) (review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71602