FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 10 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER HERNANDEZ-SALAZAR, No. 14-73237
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-269-546
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 4, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Javier Hernandez-Salazar (“Hernandez-Salazar”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision
denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings. Because the parties are familiar
*
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).
with the facts of the case, we need not recount them here. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.
1. We review the BIA’s decision to deny the motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. See Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hernandez-Salazar’s motion was
untimely and number-barred because he failed to demonstrate changed country
conditions in Mexico since the time of his removal order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7) (providing that only one motion to reopen, which must be filed
within 90 days of a final order of removal, may be submitted unless the motion “is
based on changed country conditions”). Hernandez-Salazar’s motion was filed
five years after his final order of removal, and the evidence he provided shows that
the conditions he complains of existed at the time of his earlier hearing. We deny
this portion of the petition.
2. We have jurisdiction to review BIA “decisions denying sua sponte
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions
for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir.
2016). Hernandez-Salazar challenges the BIA’s refusal to reopen his case sua
sponte, but does not identify any legal or constitutional error in the BIA’s
2
reasoning. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the refusal to reopen sua
sponte, and we dismiss this portion of the petition.
PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
3