Julio Najera-Mejia v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 16 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JULIO CESAR NAJERA-MEJIA,                       No.    16-71222
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A073-000-124
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted November 9, 2020**
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Julio Cesar Najera-Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen. 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 questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321
    *
    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).
    F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not err in concluding that Najera-Mejia’s motion to reopen is
    barred by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (a)(5). See Padilla Cuenca v. Barr, 
    956 F.3d 1079
    ,
    1085-87 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[8 U.S.C.] § 1231(a)(5) bars reopening a removal order
    that has been reinstated following [a noncitizen’s] unlawful reentry into the United
    States”).
    To the extent Najera-Mejia’s motion falls within an exception to the bar at
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (a)(5), the agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the
    motion for failure to establish exceptional circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 1204
    , 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner misunderstood the time of her
    hearing).
    The BIA provided sufficient reasoning in its decision. See Najmabadi v.
    Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   16-71222
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-71222

Filed Date: 11/16/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/16/2020