LEMUS SANDOVAL v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Albaro Antonio Lemus-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Lemus-Sandoval’s motion to reopen, because he filed the motion a year and a half after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to provide sufficient evidence of materially changed country conditions to invoke the exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening for Lemus-Sandoval to seek adjustment of status, because he does not show a legal or constitutional error that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court can review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.