Yolanda Lopez-Morales v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA LOPEZ-MORALES, AKA No. 19-72964
Yolanda Hernadez Lopez,
Agency No. A077-322-739
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Yolanda Lopez-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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). Accordingly, Lopez-
Morales’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law and
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Lopez-Urenda v.
Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Morales’s motion to
reopen to assess her eligibility for cancellation of removal on the ground that she
failed to establish prima facie eligibility. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912
(9th Cir. 2010) (providing that a motion to reopen will not be granted absent a
showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on demonstrating a reasonable
likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied); see also
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have jurisdiction
over motions to reopen regarding cases in which . . . the agency has not made a
prior discretionary determination concerning the relief sought”).
Lopez-Morales’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, erred in its
legal analysis, and violated her right to due process fail. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d
at 990 (concluding the agency adequately considered evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Lopez-Morales’s contention that there was legal error in the BIA’s
determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte fails. See Lona v. Barr, 958
2 19-72964
F.3d 1225, 1234 (9th Cir. 2020) (concluding the BIA’s denial of sua sponte relief
was not premised on legal or constitutional error); see also 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 stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72964