Jose Ramos-Perez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 644 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALFREDO RAMOS-PEREZ and No. 14-73705
ESTELA FLORES-AVELINO,
Agency Nos. A099-404-170
Petitioners, A099-404-171
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 Alfredo Ramos-Perez and Estela Flores-Avelino, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their 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
*
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).
motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion
to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed over a year after the
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they failed to establish that
any regulatory exception to the time or number limitations for filing a motion to
reopen applied, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners’ challenges to the merits of the
BIA’s March 14, 2013, decision denying cancellation of removal because the
petition for review is untimely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see
also Singh v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (an untimely petition
for review must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings and to the extent they contend they
are eligible for prosecutorial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider those
contentions. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.
2011); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions that removing them
would infringe on the constitutional rights of their children, because they did not
2 14-73705
raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73705