YUZHEN YANG v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Yuzhen Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings and to reissue its decision denying her appeal from an immigration judge’s final order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen and reissue its prior February 16, 2016, order, where Yang concedes the motion was filed more than 90 days after her final order of removal, she did not claim any exception to the filing deadline, and the BIA properly sent the prior order to the last address she provided and to her attorney. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c) (service by mail is sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to the last address provided by the alien); Al Mutarreb v. Holder, 561 F.3d 1023, 1028 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009) (service of a hearing notice on an alien’s counsel may be a sufficient means of providing notice of the time and location of removal proceedings).

To the extent Yang contends the BIA should have reopened her case under its sua sponte authority, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588-89 (9th Cir. 2016).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Yang’s contentions challenging the BIA’s February 16, 2016, order denying her claims for relief because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.