NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RITA BETY GARCIA-PEREZ, No. 18-73099
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-723-208
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rita Bety Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
*
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).
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Perez’s motion to
reopen as untimely where it was filed more than three years after the order of
removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Garcia-Perez failed
to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limitation 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 (evidence must
be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with
motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). Garcia-
Perez’s argument that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence is
unpersuasive.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte because Garcia-Perez has not raised a claim of legal or constitutional
error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has
jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited
2 18-73099
purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional
error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 18-73099