NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUSHPAMALAR No. 14-70620
SATCHITHANANTHAN,
Agency No. A079-784-814
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Pushpamalar Satchithananthan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
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 Satchithananthan’s third
motion to reopen as untimely and numerically-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 Satchithananthan failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Sri
Lanka to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations
for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 987-90 (petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different”
to warrant reopening). We reject Satchithananthan’s contentions that the BIA
failed to consider record evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA
adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I. & N.
Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA’s consideration of whether a fundamental
change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of its sua sponte
authority); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
Finally, we reject as without merit Satchithananthan’s contention that
intervening case law requires reconsideration of this court’s decision in
2 14-70620
Satchithananthan v. Holder, 508 Fed. Appx. 652, 653 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-70620