NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLEN SUYAPA SANTOS-CABRERA, No. 16-71117
AKA Maria Gonzalez-Pacheco,
Agency No. A098-589-470
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Marlen Suyapa Santos-Cabrera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos-Cabrera’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion nearly nine years after her in
absentia removal order, and has not demonstrated that any exception to the filing
deadlines are applicable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (c)(7)(C)(i).
We reject Santos-Cabrera’s contentions that the agency failed to sufficiently
consider evidence and arguments, properly consider all factors, or insufficiently
explained its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption
that the BIA did review the record).
Santos-Cabrera’s contention that the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is unconstitutional lacks merit. See Jimenez-
Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (limitations by country
of origin on the availability of special rule cancellation of removal do not violate
equal protection).
To the extent Santos-Cabrera challenges the agency’s discretionary decision
not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review this
2 16-71117
determination absent a claim of legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch,
840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board
decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the
reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
Because the untimeliness determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Santos-Cabrera’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-71117