Jose Enriquez-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 636 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JUAN ENRIQUEZ-GARCIA; No. 13-73987
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES
MALDONADO-SANTANA, Agency Nos. A096-052-496
A096-063-478
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 Juan Enriquez-Garcia and Maria De Los Angeles Maldonado-Santana,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because it was untimely and they did not establish materially changed
circumstances in Mexico as to overcome the time limitation for motions to reopen.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence of
conditions affecting the population at large lacked materiality). We reject
petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider any change in law, relevant
circumstances, or issues on appeal. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA
adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua
sponte based on petitioners’ potential eligibility for adjustment of status. See
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
We also lack jurisdiction to review any claims petitioners make as to the
BIA’s denial of administrative closure, see Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551
F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2009), or that their case warrants prosecutorial
2 13-73987
discretion, see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
Finally, we deny petitioners’ motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73987