Baljinder Cheema v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJINDER SINGH CHEEMA, No. 14-73089
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-592-620
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Baljinder Singh Cheema, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.
*
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).
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
We do not consider materials presented with the opening brief that are not
part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheema’s motion to reopen
as untimely, where Cheema filed it six years after the BIA’s final decision, and did
not establish any exception to the statutory time limitation for motions to reopen.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 993-97 (BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying motion to reopen as untimely).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua
sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf.
Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853, 2016 WL 3741866 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Cheema’s request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-73089