NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO BUENROSTRO-BRAMBILA, No. 14-73418
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-222-227
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Buenrostro-Brambila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion
to reopen deportation proceedings. 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 de novo legal and constitutional claims, and we review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 BIA did not err, abuse its discretion, or violate due process in denying
Buenrostro-Brambila’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it
found that Buenrostro-Brambila had not provided an adequate basis to excuse the
filing requirements. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
not merely reacted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an
alien must show error and prejudice). The record does not support Buenrostro-
Brambila’s contention that the BIA ignored evidence or arguments. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990.
The court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s sua sponte determination is
limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional
error, and Buenrostro-Brambila has not established any error. See Bonilla v. Lynch,
840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-73418