FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PANTALEON CASTRO, No. 14-71835
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-934-236
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pantaleon Castro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s 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
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Castro’s motion to reopen
as untimely, where the motion was filed more than sixteen years after his final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), he has not demonstrated that he
warrants equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented
from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien
exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances), and he failed to present
sufficient evidence of changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
We reject Castro’s contention that the agency ignored his arguments. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must “merely
. . . announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
To the extent Castro challenges the agency’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to review that contention. See
2 14-71835
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v.
Lynch, No. 12-73853, 2016 WL 3741866, at *10 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016).
Castro contends he qualifies for prosecutorial discretion, but we lack
jurisdiction to consider this contention. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642,
644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Castro’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
3 14-71835