NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILIBERTO BELLO SUAREZ, No. 16-73143
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-346-311
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Filiberto Bello Suarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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.
*
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).
Najmabadi v. 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 Bello Suarez’s tenth motion
to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than
nine 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). In light of our
disposition, we do not reach Bello Suarez’s remaining contentions regarding
hardship.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte
where Bello Suarez 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.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bello Suarez’s contention that his case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
To the extent Bello Suarez seeks review of the BIA’s December 2006 order,
we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
2 16-73143
§ 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted with Bello Suarez’s
opening brief. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating
standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73143