NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN SANCHEZ CABRERA, No. 14-73035
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-000-389
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Sanchez Cabrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
*
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).
672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez Cabrera’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 10 years past the filing deadline,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he does not qualify for any regulatory exception
or equitable tolling of the deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Avagyan, 646 F.3d
at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing
a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises
due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte. See 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Sanchez Cabrera’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-73035