NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER LOPEZ-NAVARRO, No. 16-72459
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-358-227
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges
Walter Lopez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
*
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).
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Navarro’s third
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more
than three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where
he failed to establish any of the regulatory exceptions to the time and number
limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Navarro’s challenge to the BIA’s
decision not to reopen sua sponte where he fails to establish any legal or
constitutional errors behind the decision. 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-72459
Walter Lopez-Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions
Combined Opinion