NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR MOISES SANCHEZ, No. 14-71670
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-301-658
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Moises Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after the filing
deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he did not provide sufficient evidence
of changed country conditions to invoke the filing deadline exception, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Sanchez’s contention that a change in law makes him eligible
for asylum and thus invokes the exception to the filing deadline is unavailing. See
Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (asserting a change of
law, rather than a change in conditions in the country of removal, is an improper
expansion of the exception).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to
reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Sanchez fails to raise a colorable constitutional
claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Mejia-Hernandez
v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-
73853, 2016 WL 3741866, at *10 (9th Cir. July 12, 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
2 14-71670
error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-71670