NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONIA MOLINA-ALVARADO, No. 15-72199
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-163-657
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sonia Molina-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
*
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).
1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Molina-Alvarado’s
motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than nineteen years after the
filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(1) (an order of deportation
entered in absentia may only be rescinded upon a motion to reopen filed within
180 days of the order if the alien demonstrates exceptional circumstances).
Additionally, Molina-Alvarado did not show that notice was improper where she
was properly served with the order to show cause and notice of hearing, and was
given written notice and was read in her native language the consequences of
failing to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1993) (requiring written notice of the
time and place of proceedings, as well as written notice of the consequences of
failing to appear).
Contrary to Molina-Alvarado’s contention, the BIA’s decision in Matter of
M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998), does not provide an independent basis for
untimely reopening of her deportation proceedings. See id. at 357 (motion to
reopen in absentia proceeding to apply for new relief is subject to timeliness
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Molina-Alvarado’s request for
2 15-72199
remand for purposes of seeking prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72199