Joaquin Ledesma-Conchas v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAQUIN LEDESMA-CONCHAS, No. 16-73761
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-879-554
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Joaquin Ledesma-Conchas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
*
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). Joaquin Ledesma-Conchas’
request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
questions of law, including claims of due process violations. Singh v. Ashcroft,
367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ledesma-Conchas’ second
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more
than four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where
Ledesma-Conchas failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum that
would invoke the changed country conditions exception to the filing deadline, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226,
1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish
prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to
reopen proceedings sua sponte, where Ledesma-Conchas fails to raise a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law about the sua sponte determination that
would invoke our jurisdiction. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte
2 16-73761
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions
for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73761