NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO MEJIA SORIANO, No. 15-73738
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-407-141
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Mejia Soriano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 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).
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mejia Soriano’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over eleven months after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mejia Soriano failed to demonstrate
material changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for a regulatory
exception to the time limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” to warrant reopening).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary 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, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). We also
lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia Soriano’s contentions challenging the BIA’s
October 15, 2014, order because Mejia Soriano did not petition for review of that
order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-73738