NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK VERNON WILLIAMS, No. 14-72532
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-405-848
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 31, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Vernon Williams, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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 and review de novo questions
*
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).
of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition
for review.
We are not persuaded by Williams’s contentions that the BIA rested its
decision denying sua sponte reopening on a legal or constitutional error. We lack
jurisdiction to consider Williams’s unexhausted contention that when he admitted
the charge that he “is not a U.S. citizen”, he only intended to waive appeal of the
IJ’s bond determination. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in
denying sua sponte reopening. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (court’s jurisdiction to
consider the agency’s decision not to sua sponte reopen is limited to reviewing the
reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error).
To the extent Williams contends that his underlying removal proceedings
did not comport with due process because of a delay in bringing proceedings, we
do not consider these contentions because this petition is not timely as to those
proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-72532