Julio Jimenez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO AMADOR JIMENEZ; Nos. 17-71317
MARGARITA HERNANDEZ DE 18-70413
AMADOR,
Agency Nos. A075-750-239
Petitioners, A075-750-240
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Julio Amador Jimenez and
Margarita Hernandez de Amador, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their
motions to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or
reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In 17-71317,
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In 18-70413, we deny
the petition for review.
Petitioners do not raise, and therefore waive, any challenge to the BIA’s
dispositive determination that their motion to reopen and reconsider was time- and
number-barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte where petitioners do not raise a legal or constitutional error
underlying the BIA’s denial. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir.
2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions
for legal or constitutional error.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion
to reconsider because petitioners did not identify any error of fact or law in the
underlying denial of their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (requiring
2 17-71317 & 18-70413
identification of factual or legal error in the prior decision).
No. 17-71317: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 18-70413: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-71317 & 18-70413