Jose Chavez Bermudez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 645 F. App'x 553 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JESUS CHAVEZ BERMUDEZ and No. 14-73022
MARIA LEONARDA CHAVEZ
PALACIOS, Agency Nos. A075-591-268
A075-591-269
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jesus Chavez Bermudez and Maria Leonarda Chavez Palacios, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their fourth motion to reopen removal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of
due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than seven years after the
BIA’s final order, and petitioners failed to demonstrate materially changed country
conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)
(to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, petitioner
must demonstrate that the new evidence establishes prima facie eligibility for
relief).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not meaningfully address the new
evidence submitted with their motion to reopen is not supported by the record. See
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA is not required to
“discuss each piece of evidence submitted”). Accordingly, the BIA did not violate
due process in denying the motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
2 14-73022
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that determination. See
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73022