Guanerfe Ordonez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUANERFE ORDONEZ, No. 19-71133
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-080-715
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Guanerfe Ordonez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
*
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).
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ordonez’s untimely and
number-barred motion to reopen where Ordonez failed to demonstrate a material
change in country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception to the time
and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA did not abuse its discretion
where evidence of general country conditions was not material to petitioner’s
claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte. 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 19-71133