FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 10 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ILBIR CAMPOS-MEJIA, No. 12-71586
Petitioner, Agency No. A029-266-213
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 6, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL,*** Senior District
Judge.
Petitioner Ilbir Campos-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen
*
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).
***
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.
to allow him to seek special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Specifically, Campos-Mejia asked
the BIA to reopen proceedings sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), which
allows the BIA to “at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in
which it has rendered a decision.” The BIA denied the motion. Campos-Mejia
contends that we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial. We disagree.
Because there is no judicially manageable standard for us to evaluate, “we
lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte.”
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ekimian v. INS, 303
F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002)). Campos-Mejia contends that In re J-J-, 21 I. &
N. Dec. 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997) (en banc), established a standard of review because
it explained that the BIA will reopen proceedings sua sponte when “exceptional
situations” exist. That argument was explicitly rejected in Ekimian. 303 F.3d at
1158.
Petition DISMISSED.